IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Single Stream of Bytes for CRYPTO Frames (#1592)

Nick Banks <notifications@github.com> Fri, 20 July 2018 20:08 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 44A78130E6D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:08:33 -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 BLBT7Lomwoyc for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25792130DEE for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:08:30 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1532117310; bh=wBTtrap4ARkt/I8OSqYuJLbKA/rsm76KZSBMgxHTRhQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=TqXIki9+QoXuxbGjbx2EQlnH3+J8DJ+gXCvBu9oS64REvFCfpTjJ6KmG0AfujRrRM 9+morCpTpThkmOpn5/F1pgvgEvzQevrX0/jWdMDm5LO7x++FBgoaMj1Lb5ibotk0gb qIKFNBCoUVsgf5jFdNGK9Xa3twQrEC6uaHcGnrxM=
From: Nick Banks <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab7b09235983abc58f32196c99b5220bd88240af3192cf00000001176a033e92a169ce1474a4c7@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1592/406713278@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1592@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1592@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Single Stream of Bytes for CRYPTO Frames (#1592)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b52413e2e926_77a93f9ec20d45bc15151"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nibanks
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/vNfXH4L1MfHOt_4dSxVQaRIbM4w>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 20:08:33 -0000

I know the design team suggested the CRYPTO frame design. I was part of the design team. At the time, in the theoretical sense it all made sense. After implementing it, I have seen some issues. Also, I agree one implementation experience isn't enough to change things outright, but it's enough to open an issue and have the discussion.

I'm not arguing to undo everything. I am just trying to consolidate things I see as bloated and overly complex. I very much like the design of multiple encryption levels. All I am arguing for is a change in how each starts its offset.

If folks still generally believe the current way we have offsets is better, then so be it. That is not my experience, so that's why I opened the issue.

-- 
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/1592#issuecomment-406713278

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email