Re: Spin bit decision
Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 02 October 2018 17:11 UTC
Return-Path: <ted.ietf@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 CE9B0131356 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 10:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 n1I6hjlejXlX for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 10:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x331.google.com (mail-ot1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::331]) (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 3E1AF1311B9 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 10:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x331.google.com with SMTP id h26-v6so2626244otl.9 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Oct 2018 10:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ShnDr+OI5dJ7M0BuRlyJ3IoIMQlLdhG4AyWK3hObgdU=; b=e7hXXN8XRb/fkehZjJHHD3Y73Gx2qLtpwD3V4mtraYEsZLr+Laane7kMg+jheZx9/D MdgxlxCy84Xo0gTByw/SrDQAkpDWJzwM4ReUHM3MGp9lxBxbmadyJ2X+K7X/ez/JJ87K nnk7SL2FH/9ozG3fq3zJPPoD2Y4teYqjIjewG8aORzt8N4ZwwW3V3RaT4oju0ftYniTh mu9x5y3jkt2zpikNEXRBs4LpOU29uGZc2kHmqRm4KbUNE3xJBkeMguWTPLWvHp8osXFK w1RFxAQFP2FWbtwmrbny8I8YtWHPfSRo5q+u0OijzdOL9Uzkng4rmyX6aeH8u1Vn8cQV 9axA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ShnDr+OI5dJ7M0BuRlyJ3IoIMQlLdhG4AyWK3hObgdU=; b=l8M6XoWZBg2KzrdNgoY+BLODdDLGPLd8WqZo9g78UTYZj8YUulf62YuVleNZ/gzleb q9rExsOjII86pNpgLK2v3n+9PiulAya61gNbsz7+RH5tQy+somlsWgylcfFNPdDmGsmt gpXdO6R59v63JuHkZRw1F/9gTO6/WDDtGJJPNPhRJ0xNxiUj1AaVDOBIfqN2fJ95khaO 5qMWi6AjAoDpGAM3M4I5vHQg2al7eWiNvSy7DdPMyE6jPuOo0RiNnma4cM/RQb0QC2C7 GQEBKUmTmwQyUOwQjR5Ndu7bZrWNwnTldQodnnIsAjQKO5Vph4uvKfxnyi6OgE9ILk7i lRHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoh5LDxRj88kMqHKtPLkabIpVvhIOI3bwWPJZ7EBLWSwjNR/DYuH zl9zxdaoY6BPVw6ibQ4QUf7dI6LxZWr4ArBS0a4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV633wEEn6gQOvQZ3YkfF110H5SWi3khM4zR3Ls/0aHia4h0Fl937uKItrjHQ/ucg4TtZIWvtcYKqX3K1zn6xLK0=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:9a1:: with SMTP id q30-v6mr9668248otd.351.1538500012287; Tue, 02 Oct 2018 10:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <14531_1538460420_5BB30B04_14531_237_4_c0f3a391-9897-80b0-575b-aa73edad0d52@orange.com> <9A63F295-5DC5-4992-9A9C-A98F72C8430D@eggert.org> <22440_1538469028_5BB32CA4_22440_292_2_8e00a462-2bbf-acf0-1195-74269a0c2fbd@orange.com> <3E3DBC15-FE42-47CF-AF7A-1F2597ED2390@eggert.org> <24019_1538484216_5BB367F8_24019_26_1_8e6b0d8e-78f0-56c7-e731-da2ff22cb194@orange.com> <08A9C80F-59E6-46EE-A4D4-1F78F5085CF7@eggert.org> <9737_1538485723_5BB36DDB_9737_147_1_82e0e028-b0e8-5e09-7bd5-e66db97c556a@orange.com> <E7479831-9594-444E-9545-A162E8D9B154@eggert.org> <32072_1538492813_5BB3898D_32072_266_1_8380ff40-29fe-269b-8ed7-4331c9e53f4d@orange.com> <MWHPR22MB0991D93D706031603B077BFCDAE80@MWHPR22MB0991.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR22MB0991D93D706031603B077BFCDAE80@MWHPR22MB0991.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 10:06:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCRmgS_6ZgDnv3-+V8aUhh3-As2SG2ZR0MWTC48JWQ78A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Spin bit decision
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Cc: alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b82b3b057741f225"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/I6crDezYG_Wv1ET-2srbkrzB3pk>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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 Oct 2018 17:11:29 -0000
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:51 AM Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be> wrote: > I don’t think it’s a grim view, I think it’s a pragmatic view. Our role > is to specify the things which are fundamental to the protocol and have to > happen for peers to interoperate. Mis-using normative language for other > things is an abuse of the process -- that's kind of the point of RFC 6919. > > > > RFC 2119 says: > > In particular, [normative language] MUST only be used where it is actually > required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for > causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For example, they must not > be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the > method is not required for interoperability. > > > > Given that the spin bit is not “actually required for interoperation,” but > is the very definition of “try to impose a particular method on > implementors,” I’d say that RFC 2119 imperatives are unwarranted. > That's not quite what we generally mean by "interoperation" here. It's quite common to have something say, in effect, "If you use X, you MUST do Y.". So, we could have a MUST in Section 2.3 of the draft, instead of the current language: Each client and server MUST reset its spin value to zero when sending the first packet of a given connection with a new connection ID. This reduces the risk that transient spin bit state can be used to link flows across connection migration or ID change. That MUST doesn't say anything about when you use the spin bit, it simply says that *if* you use it, other implementations will expect this behavior; if they get a new connection ID with a non-zero spin value, it will be a protocol error. That pattern of use is very common. Ted
- Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- RE: Spin bit decision Marcus Ihlar
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- Re: Spin bit decision Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
- Re: Spin bit decision Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- RE: Spin bit decision Nick Banks
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit decision Brian Trammell (IETF)
- RE: Spin bit decision Lucas Pardue
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- RE: Spin bit decision Lucas Pardue
- Re: Spin bit decision Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- RE: Spin bit decision Mike Bishop
- Re: Spin bit decision Ted Hardie
- Re: Spin bit decision Ian Swett
- RE: Spin bit decision Mike Bishop
- Re: Spin bit decision Marten Seemann
- signaling that QUIC is QUIC was Re: Spin bit deci… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decision Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Marten Seemann
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Kazuho Oku
- Re: Spin bit decision Kazuho Oku
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
- RE: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Lucas Pardue
- Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Kazuho Oku
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Kazuho Oku
- RE: Spin bit decision Mike Bishop
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku
- RE: Spin bit decision Gabriel Montenegro
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku
- RE: Spin bit as a negotiated option Mike Bishop
- RE: Spin bit as a negotiated option Marcus Ihlar
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Marten Seemann
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- RE: Spin bit as a negotiated option Marcus Ihlar
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Brian Trammell (IETF)
- SV: Spin bit as a negotiated option Marcus Ihlar
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku