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

ekr <notifications@github.com> Wed, 05 February 2020 11:42 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 0122D120088 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 03:42:19 -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 ppU_8BEwYwOV for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 03:42:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-26.smtp.github.com (out-26.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4641B120074 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 03:42:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-25680bd.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-25680bd.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.61]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3535C280043 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 03:42:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1580902935; bh=H0YMCvemsUJJ+obyqYPGNVHdmxye5SVuu8PAORiixq0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=pmJDZM0VM6yVb16vbG2wmPcnNgaSfLPYGn4bNsu7yEM22JBkL0i0/v59+GLabVfQ1 W0nz1ZY0/BFoCDwsOCvcM0zPqwmD3ejHRtUl1ZgpqocM5x47CGZgEs5qd+/HubRBU6 1XQCeZrfvZ3r4TmglWS/L7zhmoNMkDV1hQYu+MBM=
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 03:42:15 -0800
From: ekr <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5SYMNQ4UTVV6JZJ454I7OJPEVBNHHCCXKVD4@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/353652557@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_5e3aaa1724979_29823f9a418cd96013245b"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ekr
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/nAnWgVhf2mOQAR_jDcB5i98BjOQ>
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: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 11:42:19 -0000

ekr 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.

PR sent.

-- 
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_r375207515