Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Tweak traffic analysis text (#3411)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 15:59 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 BF01D12012E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 07:59:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 GbMQ2DGrwc6Q for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 07:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FC4212012C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 07:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-5fb2734.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-5fb2734.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.19.27]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 990C5C60A03 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 07:59:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1580831941; bh=PBWdETUK9kkBngmlLNtmZOs83bY6Hi99v3TGwP+FVR0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=vvk29N1RiPMoQ6EiuzSbMi+qFFe5VFdOz7OjVKprJbxDOaUbBHagf0GDpOqkv/KPj SkgchuC63/OkQc55s+qrzB2wEOhvhv1oZwkupHCq1EnXun5N2gFTlXPA0zHqo46QbN nG3sijXePq93t3pxS75GbHF5QkNSHcf9vm5pgB+o=
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 07:59:01 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5OYUZWGAQ7HZZ5TSF4I3DULEVBNHHCCXKVD4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3411/review/353093852@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3411@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3411@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Tweak traffic analysis text (#3411)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e3994c591121_340c3fbe25acd96040028d"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/jsj3p8NMZ4ubw3mqBP2GnkTjWWM>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 15:59:04 -0000

martinthomson commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1527,8 +1527,10 @@ Where HTTP/2 employs PADDING frames and Padding fields in other frames to make a
 connection more resistant to traffic analysis, HTTP/3 can either rely on
 transport-layer padding or employ the reserved frame and stream types discussed
 in {{frame-reserved}} and {{stream-grease}}.  These methods of padding produce
-different results in terms of the granularity of padding, the effect of packet
-loss and recovery, and how an implementation might control padding.
+different results in terms of the granularity of padding, how padding is
+arranged in relation to the information that is being protected, whether
+padding is applied in the case of packet loss, and how an implementation might
+control padding.

That seems like a different problem.

-- 
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/pull/3411#discussion_r374760612