Re: New Version Notification for draft-kuhn-quic-0rtt-bdp-07.txt

Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> Tue, 27 October 2020 02:29 UTC

Return-Path: <kazuhooku@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 1D79A3A1245 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 DWLV6JRfcWQW for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x535.google.com (mail-ed1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) (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 3826B3A1242 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x535.google.com with SMTP id dg9so12098911edb.12 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:29:49 -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=IvYh8ZcUSpT1GU48QEqZNpZNM40fQQeqabefv7f/fco=; b=b10tQ+HipB7Yg2LjloHRiiVSnwHO+5XS57VcmbT8R5KjQ8/1dKuq6EVyGM3qVo7s41 5Y+1NlME8stJAebtkLVcgWoELdhQvYg/8BBedJ8w4eX+QaD0TGnlSdhNP9/HxO0CWTSq kNSqhVBYfhHkfTRi4O0iH7s7areH7aTuE137syfu3fQIuMGar1yik+D8mAKpDCR9AeaD xWP2jBdOCkHzm6ES2upJHbQthz9ahotvzwZMy1A1NRJr9hTsJaBt8IcQ74ONpKnb8h1D pR7dQkT/gtwkSprIskrwiPp+g5Ea7wJYjw/bCaOE6RhxQuGM3UWiWeKRZTgIGYXp/smN eXqw==
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=IvYh8ZcUSpT1GU48QEqZNpZNM40fQQeqabefv7f/fco=; b=DkyRm/UVB6dAU4eLbe4e6uNUsCa2i4TZ43kpWu4Nf89YVB7HuFdW/MsMZOqCkeIHok yTW7biJJI6jod8/d7HoVx9+Ei8dwC1dt1MgbOB35uxqSeNVhC2nLGpmH3Iy5LHEXYRUY HmjUjJw/04Glj5HA4IzBmUGzQCssJ6ICzb12L5/pIx+/s4MHQmLvCuuAHcmb+BRdfUS3 mISkAJW8tEAk/WsD7qY76FBxMEyhKTElnMt3bKxOT99ndwLHbM8c0wjBi5t36N7L9A9l F13YixLxOqTVwwOldXf1ASqr0MCQv9L8m2DB5buSOb0A2TFg+ReGePyIY4CIZWi5kTxX HCGw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Q+3BYHIUtyDyUyULHA75WzaVkNBf7/KQlPZsehX4UeeRDLqpS bCGsztq0Cam4KMOPK9zDuxbPLgywAEPimvoKves=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxvCQvhZDAazHmiqk/SqtwMJM93xi2yOQckin5Kic7ZXKvsPgtTxMUr+mG2IZS+tw2gl5ulsLLpIakKG3gHQ0A=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:392:: with SMTP id o18mr4090edv.283.1603765787425; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158978951893.22751.4814113172992555805@ietfa.amsl.com> <F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF1EDAB042@TW-MBX-P03.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr> <CANatvzw8+tUG2NjO2OoN1FgsE5mZdzTVZ05ACSTR2zseDdasBg@mail.gmail.com> <55494829-b0eb-43c3-2717-fcae429c8b04@huitema.net> <CANatvzzkD3+R6qWbpwoxyh4neq2+c_WwRU7eNKuDuYmu1a1Yhw@mail.gmail.com> <CADdTf+i20uC9LBdp0X+FVHtkbq-WEKGUCvZZ2QXoxKDiNvyMcg@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9oaTS_7vwLroR6beKB5A2gq_q4-cj8qdnnrbY+Gh-_ixng@mail.gmail.com> <CADdTf+gFS+5C_FuKX0KddkO5_y7PVZ=V91CN-_V2WSHh4zAcYA@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9oa1a1=hDfD8J-WnUOtoK2HXzBq=bkQSZOpDT1qzcr7Yhg@mail.gmail.com> <623bb830-5939-e08d-05e7-9b1459034a16@huitema.net>
In-Reply-To: <623bb830-5939-e08d-05e7-9b1459034a16@huitema.net>
From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:29:36 +0900
Message-ID: <CANatvzzoS6nW8r1hDfc1GW_0BY2zA_jNYxyjR7Un1mEzQm_J8g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-kuhn-quic-0rtt-bdp-07.txt
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Cc: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, Matt Joras <matt.joras@gmail.com>, Kuhn Nicolas <nicolas.kuhn@cnes.fr>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000010028905b29dd29f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/MJrANrdpVa9T1gZ3GZe1D6_POOg>
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, 27 Oct 2020 02:29:54 -0000

2020年10月27日(火) 11:14 Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>:

>
> On 10/26/2020 6:20 PM, Lucas Pardue wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2020, 01:12 Matt Joras, <matt.joras@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Indeed, but as much as I love HTTP it's not the only protocol we have on
>> top of QUIC. A consistency argument can also be made for having a
>> connection-level metric tied to a connection-level semantic (i.e. a QUIC
>> frame) rather than the transactional-level semantic (HTTP header).
>>
>
> I agree! A QUIC-level frame could be the most appropriate thing in this
> case. I think this will be an interesting space for innovation. And let's
> not forget all the other datagram-oriented protocols that have preceeded -
> so perhaps there will be some re-innovation.
>
>
> I am glad that we agree. Now, we have an issue regarding security. Nicolas
> Kuhn and his coauthors have pursued a design in which the server sends an
> encrypted blob to the client, and then client echoes it in the new
> connection. This is largely based on concerns about potential attacks.
> Suppose the client said "I received at 1Gbps last time", when in fact it
> can only absorb 10 Mbps. Some bad stuff might well be happening along the
> way. But then, Matt is looking at passing statistics from server to client,
> so the client can debug issues, display statistics in the app, and
> potentially also reuse the statistics to inform server that the last
> connection had an RTT of 600 ms and a data-rate of 100 Mbps, and maybe we
> should shortcut initial congestion control in order to gain lots of time.
> How do we reconcile these multiple goals?
>

I think that the answer is simple.

Loss recovery and CC states are properties maintained by an endpoint. The
peer should not be given the right to change them (e.g., CWND, RTT).
Servers might offload the state to the client, but that state has to be
encrypted and integrity-protected. NEW_TOKEN tokens cover this purpose.

OTOH, servers can expose any information to the client regarding the
quality of the connection. It is totally reasonable to give the client the
bandwidth information that the server retains, so that the client could
choose a good bandwidth. There are no security concerns providing such
information, regardless of the medium being a QUIC frame or a HTTP header.
And that's because it does not affect loss recovery or CC.

-- Christian Huitema
>


-- 
Kazuho Oku