IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Removing packet number gaps

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 02 January 2018 03:39 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
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 17A4E126C22 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 19:39:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 8gD4Ix0ZPU2Y for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 19:39:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x230.google.com (mail-ot0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 916251200FC for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 19:39:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x230.google.com with SMTP id d44so33176274otd.12 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 19:39:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=60aSrqu7mNAqBvnlxhEWSBZVS79alIOyUAKrlXKHtls=; b=t83v9JMuwXGfm3jbN9VeTqMGlRYMUNTQC2bCoQ06xAYa6TYMQEfhWc+FJ52BXWEJha nToVE4JTUaGn4Bi+Ajhl14Zk3i6FkUzFmqdP1uYpi2zmgMfKU4DhPQlPVdSLzVrXSZTo vgrmrC4G5K80lUfDvVRP5pV42uaDrdmNM7cSdwtO6zomQDFfMPlPWXSjvSFPs0Les0oM GJktx0i5la1coBiNmWBouwpGlue6gjfbtQExU7fUnplyA2nzVYx6t93LzEv9uLNM5h00 s4YDXPnM61dgr5Nn1wMc0gsh/Y1/E5ou95Ag64BpCJC5qtKtcYCjIYM6ajCLxp1DHTFK 79zQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=60aSrqu7mNAqBvnlxhEWSBZVS79alIOyUAKrlXKHtls=; b=i7sytMKqUDNcDvdf0nLWf+bo246G1Z8Ehc5aSiKoYiCFXw+fGfH2z9RNIwDZyXUsV/ QVLG6997fANQMefaMgMop9Qm1FgVXp8Bw+ZH/d0GAKLsI7+EBme7Eysl6lpJ21Ts3/WW VZ9PtR9EC9vFqFi0taro3NToJaB/muriYfePMPpypvckBzIsG+eR0ReZB+FLecZUXXfw K5EufgxQDo8JGnj3zQ/XmJmPO7OXIVKeMdgNyAyKs+zMSrmTsYyypAOKNsm1V32FnSz6 +G+SsO3iULwcojNnjNiWdQtphqdULaiAtCzfBBxRJqWzQZnMWtFGPAJsbCQyWHMpeRe5 MBlA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJpc1AbdKyO2LC7+D3703yW33sCjL+JB6DbniwMqa+cOJoX10o8 Znc9C8DM6iCuITSQqvcdlHsHWfPlBRORwZ/mJwqYbw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov6eoH8jKmgvZU3FdjzCacL5vO0gq+aQRdY00c4lc6hJtOCb9dOeSE1r2sYTZ9k7kEsjHCmU01ohz1Xi0GUELc=
X-Received: by 10.157.74.52 with SMTP id h49mr34872893otf.308.1514864339856; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 19:38:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.46.182 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 19:38:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <16F84894-C3D9-4342-83EB-616759E739BD@huitema.net>
References: <CABkgnnW89B+5Qo0u_+Wr5K0wCRZ3Wp-+CTWJbHRGGwD06hn-zw@mail.gmail.com> <16F84894-C3D9-4342-83EB-616759E739BD@huitema.net>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2018 14:38:59 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWHcZrAKBKpkF7JPZ3Bzwdk9HPXcA1cbyUtkvzMv0G64g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Removing packet number gaps
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Cc: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/AOM5W9sBInz0LUKd0OrCAkiUXIY>
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: Tue, 02 Jan 2018 03:39:02 -0000

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> wrote:
> For clarification: are you proposing to make the encryption key and IV dependent on the connection ID, or just the packet number mask?

Both.  As you argue in your draft, this makes some things easier, and
it fits more naturally if the key, IV, and mask all have similar
derivations.

> Also, are you proposing applying the mask before encoding the packet header on 1, 2, 4 or 8 bytes, or after that?

After.  We'd have to be careful to get the bit alignment right, of course.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email