IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Looping with multiple Retry packets (#1451)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Thu, 21 June 2018 06:27 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05301131048 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 23:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HXdiGpqpxvrh for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 23:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DDA41311EF for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 23:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 23:27:16 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1529562436; bh=uymTNjkYYNH3AhCGo84Y7Q3rkuvCyc3mdgnf9qQetAE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=zWMdjh0WpZ8hbKHWKo+dh6t51scfnnzgFO3ABczdC6kDPbKTEqDlrQXVPLuvitBaV EKdrBlN9MAUjpdmngXWRxuPOUQVSt9l62tznGN17SHONNCZDdv08dHLDouQNPV/Jvz KMnThcnftDiCgEhuuGFCm7ZxZynHyQCNWMEJENTM=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abae9ebbfe1ad8b4c8ffd041c7a1c05ab89f92cf6292cf000000011743074492a169ce13d69366@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1451/398990515@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1451@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1451@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Looping with multiple Retry packets (#1451)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b2b45444a13a_1ffe53f8afecf2f88363813"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/je8iyDv8dnr61X0XvCpy8nUnfLg>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:27:28 -0000

> May I ask why you think that it is not a good idea to require every one of us to share some small amount of secret (e.g. encryption key) between the middleboxes and the servers than we would be running?

If you are in a cloud hosted setup (like Azure or Digital Ocean) the servers are operated by customers while load balancers and DDoS mitigation devices might be operated by the cloud provider. Requiring shared secrets here is messy. Sometimes this is done with TLS termination today, but it is still messy - some moving towards auto-configuration via LetsEncrypt - which of course would be an option for QUIC as well - but there are many moving parts making automation difficult.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1451#issuecomment-398990515

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status