IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Wed, 04 April 2018 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <pmcmanus@mozilla.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 ABCB912D88A for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 07:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.101
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 MYTFkbi4_VjZ for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 07:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linode64.ducksong.com (linode6only.ducksong.com [IPv6:2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe6e:e8da]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A4F12D86E for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 07:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-f50.google.com (mail-oi0-f50.google.com [209.85.218.50]) by linode64.ducksong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 646C63A064 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:40:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-f50.google.com with SMTP id 188-v6so19434129oih.8 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 07:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Ea1BXMHr7jo4cCgnIjvtNM62+zqo+CR0GVwFPNWEIKIHHJrffc dnvj/DJLl4kc5PUrHtLilfISR4ie+t+PiBm6O5s=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+wlcro4weRHLaBcCfuMDhlb2aVV1EXAe6D7Qsla3V0fKbu6e0ZaGd9alXZU8OB7ITz6SHVyRh9k4oqaswUS/M=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:b2c3:: with SMTP id b186-v6mr5622782oif.337.1522852816117; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 07:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.74.70.23 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 07:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B5235224-6761-463C-B163-39A4466DD4D0@trammell.ch>
References: <7fd34142-2e14-e383-1f65-bc3ca657576c@huitema.net> <F9FCC213-62B9-437C-ADF9-1277E6090317@gmail.com> <CABcZeBM3PfPkqVxPMcWM-Noyk=M2eCFWZw2Eq-XytbHM=0T9Uw@mail.gmail.com> <CAN1APdfjuvd1eBWCYedsbpi1mx9_+Xa6VvZ3aq_Bhhc+HN67ug@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMtQBwsAF85i=xHmWN3PuGRkJEci+_PjS3LDXi7NgHyYg@mail.gmail.com> <1F436ED13A22A246A59CA374CBC543998B5CCEFD@ORSMSX111.amr.corp.intel.com> <CABcZeBNfPsJtLErBn1=iGKuLjJMo=jEB5OLxDuU7FxjJv=+b=A@mail.gmail.com> <1F436ED13A22A246A59CA374CBC543998B5CDAD4@ORSMSX111.amr.corp.intel.com> <BBB8D1DE-25F8-4F3D-B274-C317848DE872@akamai.com> <CAN1APdd=47b2eXkvMg+Q_+P254xo4vo-Tu-YQu6XoUGMByO_eQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gMpz4MpdmrHLtC8MvTf5uO9LjD915jM-i2LfpKY384O2w@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR0702MB3611A67E764EE1C7D1644FAD84AD0@HE1PR0702MB3611.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <d8e35569-e939-4064-9ec4-2cccfba2f341@huitema.net> <CACpbDccqKoF-Y1poHMN2cLOK9GOuvtMTPsF-QEen3b30kUo9bg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gNffwpraF-H2LQBF33vUhYFx0bi_UXJ3N14k4Xj4NmWUw@mail.gmail.com> <40C1F6FE-2B2C-469F-8F98-66329703ED50@mnot.net> <CAOdDvNo9QS=CX5YUWK8Lxs_SYX4nEM7OWv2+zB=VGhOX6J-BEw@mail.gmail.com> <B5235224-6761-463C-B163-39A4466DD4D0@trammell.ch>
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 10:40:15 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNocw6cP6=c+x5nsN_yNp7VWp-RcmUABmX+cxTTgWbHnsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNocw6cP6=c+x5nsN_yNp7VWp-RcmUABmX+cxTTgWbHnsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption
To: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002664d5056906cdd1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/CKWfuga0oXPUFYh6qm2idg_buo8>
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, 04 Apr 2018 14:40:19 -0000

it is about linkability, but in v1 for mobility (which I wouldn't call
multipath but ymmv).



On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Brian Trammell (IETF) <ietf@trammell.ch>
wrote:

> hi Patrick,
>
> > On 4 Apr 2018, at 14:54, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
> >
> > btw I think its wrong to characterize this as perf vs privacy - its cpu
> vs bandwidth, the privacy is a must have.
>
> I agree with your characterization here, but I'm curious as to what aspect
> of privacy PN encryption guarantees. Is there something I'm missing beyond
> rendering linkability vastly more difficult for multipath flows with a
> single PN space?
>
> Thanks, cheers,
>
> Brian
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email