IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Invariants draft

"Philipp S. Tiesel" <phils@in-panik.de> Mon, 04 December 2017 14:46 UTC

Return-Path: <phils@in-panik.de>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD4F127601 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 06:46:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 iiJ9jRMDKTvs for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 06:46:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from einhorn-mail.in-berlin.de (einhorn.in-berlin.de [192.109.42.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27A321274D2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 06:46:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-From: phils@in-panik.de
Received: from x-berg.in-berlin.de (x-change.in-berlin.de [217.197.86.40]) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id vB4EjQJg022506 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:45:27 +0100
Received: from [2001:638:809:ff1f::8295:dc66] by x-berg.in-berlin.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <phils@in-panik.de>) id 1eLrzL-0001zn-Bg; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 15:44:55 +0100
From: "Philipp S. Tiesel" <phils@in-panik.de>
Message-Id: <2EC600A4-0FD3-4136-8022-B3F944E67A19@in-panik.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BDE07FF3-1385-4320-9AA2-27E5DD7F0DF8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\))
Subject: Re: Invariants draft
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 15:45:25 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVr7jQ2=fFM+OOgk0-=Fseze8fT3xwWBOj-4CWTOtbq1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnVr7jQ2=fFM+OOgk0-=Fseze8fT3xwWBOj-4CWTOtbq1Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/67iJLl_gV7NkrOSWHb_Qqq2oQGg>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 14:46:14 -0000

Hi,

> On 1. Dec 2017, at 05:09, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I've just submitted a personal draft that describes the invariants
> that I think we agreed to in Singapore.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-quic-invariants <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-quic-invariants>

Reading the draft, I wondered whether we should put some rudimentary amplification attack mitigation in the invariant version negation description.

Something alongside: “Don’t send a version negotiation packet in replay to a smaller packet”.

AVE!
  Philipp S. Tiesel / phils…

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email