IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at

"Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch> Wed, 22 November 2017 12:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@trammell.ch>
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 35AAF129400 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 04:21:16 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 LJZLeFfvE3yH for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 04:21:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gozo.iway.ch (gozo.iway.ch [IPv6:2001:8e0:40:325::36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 242AC120046 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 04:21:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gozo.iway.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEAA23402E7; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:21:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ACF/18338.31216); Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:21:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from switchplus-mail.ch (switchplus-mail.ch [212.25.8.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gozo.iway.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:21:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from vpn-global-dhcp2-174.ethz.ch (account ietf@trammell.ch [129.132.209.174] verified) by switchplus-mail.ch (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.18) with ESMTPSA id 36855352; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:21:10 +0100
From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
Message-Id: <ABF0726B-5401-4400-A25F-849B69C4B8D5@trammell.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_197C9583-A123-47A0-AFD2-DE0355C616E1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:21:09 +0100
In-Reply-To: <fd3af24e-b0cd-6a3b-c4d6-6ef6c17569aa@cisco.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Lars Eggert <lars@netapp.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
References: <AFEE7BBA-E5DC-4064-AA19-33921EAF4C01@mnot.net> <21B07D8C-C4A1-4321-9E43-61C9DB9DC4CA@trammell.ch> <fd09b775-4c0e-9d99-e49c-421212f2e5e4@cs.tcd.ie> <F4F7A438-F30F-406B-9971-DA05DA458B44@netapp.com> <C8DDB9E3-C8F9-49CB-8C6D-E381C00AC02D@trammell.ch> <CCB67783-2760-44A3-979D-DEDB81ECB187@netapp.com> <253F0249-3FCB-4543-9DB6-BA4F5ABA84CA@mnot.net> <918BF809-338D-4FE9-A7B8-887E532C7FA8@trammell.ch> <fd3af24e-b0cd-6a3b-c4d6-6ef6c17569aa@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/6v9-wnG9yEipof91so_kQcWh1ws>
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: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:21:16 -0000

> On 22 Nov 2017, at 13:16, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hard to follow the bouncing ball here, but on these two points and
> elsewhere:
> 
> 
> On 11/22/17 1:07 PM, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote:
>> 
>> The DT did not, but the WG discussed it after the DT report. I'll take your statement here as an indication that the rough consensus I thought I saw for the spin bit as harmless and useful in Singapore and on the list afterward is not an impression shared by the chairs and the rest of the WG.
> 
> Mark did say that he was speaking as a contributor.

Ah, good point. Apologies, strike that, I won't take that as a declaration of (non)consensus then.

> On the general point, general security considerations principles should
> apply.  If we know how to abuse a field, we should state the risk.  So
> long as the benefit is articulated, at that point the E in IETF kicks
> in: make your design tradeoffs.  That's what engineers do.  Network
> management is often the flipside of privacy, so...
> 
>> 'Night. I'm off to enjoy the last nice day in Zürich.
> 
> Is Armageddon coming?  I missed the memo.

It's twelve degrees and the sun is shining. in November! GO OUTSIDE! he yells to himself...

cheers, B

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email