IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Removing packet number gaps

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 02 January 2018 03:40 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 96815126CB6 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 19:40:00 -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 eHXyy2AzpRV8 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 19:39:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x236.google.com (mail-ot0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::236]) (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 4B08B1200FC for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 19:39:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x236.google.com with SMTP id w4so12397932otg.3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 19:39:59 -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=Q9lU2vOzAQ6zNdIo+1bFFKnxMbGRd7kQcDhSN3B8ix8=; b=RbDkyV5JKRAm1wnWcGO9D/Gg0WR9JREwwLUjA+S/CaB6+sb9c5nRcRL0FgvirmJRkQ J3iNc331p8A9zCyyX47ugluXQJQCF1WSHqA+RtYWIq/BTyRirv7LmLNzigipkturpUKg EMgP4ZuYtsmuxB+gF8Z3DnRey34ZR7R/Bw8EKUdfVwMHCrSb+2rhwcG4k/5pRmRydKEe rMMBW9E3m7V/+yxnVduWze5gFSxLX4s/M7iSkwQ/aMazZcDDD3RFHELC5cNjNeFohHnW VXnpH+HkFkDr8pRfIn1ZCG5ytrQ6/aW2SLcMml7tcUqLUNzxyM/ifrKTKewTFaf0747v l5mw==
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=Q9lU2vOzAQ6zNdIo+1bFFKnxMbGRd7kQcDhSN3B8ix8=; b=KcCgaicPuqcfw1EjcKv0olw1rYHtpb3zugugyJRuGJNYxF2HDBA1z7M1CDS4SptKBz E09+JJuZYUsFSaHWX5v+uGKbfX0L3srjMY5+5UU06nzbeqa0dv/mdiFyofDea+wSNhN+ ShEwpjLHfd7d9wccN1UUeIbUjIJWiW+SewIwVEDloUhi9KP1mnSSQohpb+IDi+ur1g9f 09B2/hi7iX6BpwfXBs6L55NfEOCryTMXEVMrgm1LV4gehTEpzJs3WKIzgXl+eHODF5TX bpIgX46hVkzcvLKNNxL1dkY/fvjzsdYVmdvUoaWe31Kt35x7W3w4aEw/Uzs6ZyipZhuH wqJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIMt4vGZomYTemt8Xn2huSfpw9synxXoHvjn2pmN+0iAZrFbPj0 eA68h1aLRb36fHxYGiYtINev799sTNtUO0nC/en4rQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov9SOO8WlM2kinjqIaU83f3Adwy6TLuxxKYIOMxQE58oKKe//c+gonYjXDFUfmw7bgk894nEfyvVQJqWzr9XG4=
X-Received: by 10.157.35.229 with SMTP id t92mr11995689otb.16.1514864398632; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 19:39:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.46.182 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jan 2018 19:39:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <78d51955754d41f081561ffca6f23dee@usma1ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <CABkgnnW89B+5Qo0u_+Wr5K0wCRZ3Wp-+CTWJbHRGGwD06hn-zw@mail.gmail.com> <78d51955754d41f081561ffca6f23dee@usma1ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2018 14:39:58 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnX4bc6=thC0+XUD9h+jEFbA_9hYdVgdRNWBWsbVUms2Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Removing packet number gaps
To: "Lubashev, Igor" <ilubashe@akamai.com>
Cc: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/LNkkKjJBnCYwNkvhpIHehKcs9wo>
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 03:40:00 -0000

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Lubashev, Igor <ilubashe@akamai.com> wrote:
> Could we use PLUS instead of XOR?  My understanding is that there is little cryptographic difference between XOR and PLUS, and it is nicer to have consecutive packet numbers on the wire...

It depends on what your goals are, but sure.  XOR won't make it
impossible to recover numbers, but it would make it annoying and
that's petty.  Addition modulo the field size works for me.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email