Re: The first octet

Martin Thomson <> Mon, 06 August 2018 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C59130E77 for <>; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 02:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ITTHloYTB4HB for <>; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 02:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B097A128C65 for <>; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 02:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d189-v6so21004806oib.6 for <>; Mon, 06 Aug 2018 02:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=M5HLtTK5lQlkhZ40G/ZynoEza6hrWHOWufm9cbY4ytM=; b=U/bFs9JMokyYAXEFX4AArEF8gprIwhb9o8/2wS+57l+DFnUXb9gqn2TL8Hbew5tWMP YICl3N0GAZDbFDy8qpsojSj1b6j5qoHTHCWQwyKNcF2PQhB89ISWLeZlCjKDyaUTtKSO PmBoF4Sl5tYyIe5cebGByqMmtjYymryQLNp1xzpCAqX1GZ2ILuJnucCs46FoxnJnVKTI V+DLFS5TlOFnjEnMCXjw3lIs4VqTePGGChqpMKqE3trcYfi49/KIh5jKVGyNc6qvgBmm zZsR0AbT8TMSOFwoEM94qHU34Vm2ctFj6OIOt3LoHGb7M+KPa+FSYg4uDaDbavq8dFqx DS+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=M5HLtTK5lQlkhZ40G/ZynoEza6hrWHOWufm9cbY4ytM=; b=IVtXHF0JJ8rCDH9j20/YDQtFSrq0JoRjJQ6utrENwHDrVaSgM54zLaIn7lde6alB6Y KLUspq8EbA+R6zXWP2xMNgSc9pFHOMoIU6UIVJuFTPRrXd7eqakjPXc1y57vEvvZc7Bz GQTeJuarEL0GYKmiSq2nDUAz6r+Rybz/UnRleeQ0mxcwaXOg279EUTRuL3+yrDtt+Lpl ZUWDlRZrtXfQrmid2VALFEx4lqKRGCfui47gdKCJicHaF3/TES3EbaLyGRJ7CEnCOifk WuOngE3hdXFAMWGscoiArh5ehUQgeXtc0Lr1x2MlLqzXoq+NYQN2UVpx9Dx89GllfAau R1fg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlGdny3DRoVd9YsYcwVf0eQR20hHUYA/BlDfODmnwBwaTBOAOg7w WURsU3QovagJyfYDnwmZU0Z578cdpAPqfOryR171IA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfnv25wPcQ4x3MtwQbRKWjjO6dObh0vSatdQ2n8SHrlWHn3+k66SRI0DD4/jL3d8O+jM5dHY+AezHxZis1R2yw=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:5841:: with SMTP id m62-v6mr14799283oib.346.1533548275016; Mon, 06 Aug 2018 02:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 19:37:43 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: The first octet
To: Dirkjan Ochtman <>
Cc: QUIC WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002dacea0572c10837"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 09:37:57 -0000

On Mon, 6 Aug. 2018, 18:10 Dirkjan Ochtman, <> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 7:56 AM Martin Thomson <>
> wrote:
>> For those who read this far, if you have opinions on what principles
>> should drive this design, please respond here.  If you have a proposed
>> design (or designs) and can explain the principles that are expressed,
>> that's OK too.  If this gets enough feedback, I might arrange a call
>> for interested parties.
> I haven't dug deeply into this, but I have been wondering about enabling
> alternatives to TLS for integrity and confidentiality. Notably, I think the
> Noise protocol variants are looking very interesting into this space.
> Assuming that the current stream 0 design makes it possible to somewhat
> generically swap out TLS for something and that Noise provides the right
> primitives to fit that conceptual API, it seems reserving some bits in the
> long header packets might help enable this?

QUIC v1 will use TLS. All the questions I am asking relate specifically to
that version. I made it clear in my original email that these are
version-specific bits.

A protocol that uses a different cryptographic handle has to use a
different version number.