IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Packet number encryption

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sat, 03 February 2018 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 9409312D87F for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Feb 2018 07:33:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 lR4EzDl3v7Sl for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Feb 2018 07:33:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EE9112D87E for <quic@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Feb 2018 07:33:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4D8BE5B; Sat, 3 Feb 2018 15:33:44 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CpJSkDsmm07d; Sat, 3 Feb 2018 15:33:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.244.2.138] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8109DBE51; Sat, 3 Feb 2018 15:33:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1517672023; bh=7Q+TNslmjCfduow/dftrbc6qO/aHCDScIzNooTrh3vY=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=IDLFIFEr2xWqLT5tovnHXv+FZHknX1ZpuFcA1N/TNohGKa8LNKZyILgQkvvjhxpmu Sp+ioZQZI+uJPAsF0Zhny0qCNU2AiI85WU5MnGHJqg+2oYu9ft/qpEuq8RrEruFxeK GP0cuMxprExive2eH60YFRk4YJa/jQRKZp1107+Y=
Subject: Re: Packet number encryption
To: "Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB/Cambridge)" <thomas.fossati@nokia.com>, Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
Cc: Gorry Fairhust <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnVyo3MmWtVULiV=FJTnR528qfY8-OmKGWAs0bCvri-a_g@mail.gmail.com> <1F7FB3B8-A94C-4354-9944-FB09FB8DB68B@trammell.ch> <CABcZeBMbwdwyC9TxxHBLYaZKfNB-FG2wCGjqUZ_mNR-A1R47FA@mail.gmail.com> <9096e5ec-581e-875a-b1dd-bff0b05206fd@huitema.net> <CABkgnnWRQSAufwPss+qf=xAzCwRYeNNH8XLPm3yFaHxOb+ba4g@mail.gmail.com> <BF80500A-6277-45DC-8525-9C3FE138B76D@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <5A7191E0.6010003@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5214AD93-8376-4B25-922F-AF5551CC2E95@netapp.com> <F990E064-E6F8-41A3-B791-F776C9955E15@nokia.com> <CAGD1bZab0GaZFsHwC+nw3AxxC4VusxMJ6oDanzk3dSDdWKAXdw@mail.gmail.com> <6670AEA8-081F-4523-8F1C-DF5B26AF5A0F@nokia.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=5BB5A6EA5765D2C5863CAE275AB2FAF17B172BEA; url=
Message-ID: <2fe4293f-1634-a27c-835b-33c8b24c23c5@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2018 15:33:42 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6670AEA8-081F-4523-8F1C-DF5B26AF5A0F@nokia.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hQvxxl17ihP3PSpt1w3eLcYnC8JumFXLW"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/GBF1IzKJOYqTlUy8xBzYicwprnY>
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: Sat, 03 Feb 2018 15:33:49 -0000


On 03/02/18 15:04, Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB/Cambridge) wrote:
> Going back for a second to IoT: imagine using short header with no CID &
> tiny payloads - e.g., the typical 2-4 bytes periodic sensor reading.  In
> this case, PN encryption would increase the crypto compute per packet by
> something around 50%, which can make a substantial difference on
> low-power, battery operated devices.

Sorry - isn't the duration for which the radio is turned on
a far more important factor for power consumption in such
cases? I don't recall a real case being described where the
kind of crypto being described here would make a significant
difference but maybe you can describe one?

Ta,
S.

-- 
PGP key change time for me.
New-ID 7B172BEA; old-ID 805F8DA2 expires Jan 24 2018.
NewWithOld sigs in keyservers.
Sorry if that mucks something up;-)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email