IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Packet number encryption

"Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch> Fri, 02 February 2018 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@trammell.ch>
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 6FB9912D944 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 07:14:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 fwMB1QKuj1M3 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 07:13:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gozo.iway.ch (gozo.iway.ch [212.25.24.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 145FE12783A for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 07:13:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gozo.iway.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C14A340552; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 16:13:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ACF/6597.10403); Fri, 2 Feb 2018 16:13:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from switchplus-mail.ch (switchplus-mail.ch [212.25.8.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gozo.iway.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 16:13:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from nb-10604.ethz.ch (account ietf@trammell.ch [82.130.102.91] verified) by switchplus-mail.ch (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.18) with ESMTPSA id 44171450; Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:13:55 +0100
From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
Message-Id: <919299EA-77FB-49B4-BCDD-F505AAA5E71B@trammell.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0EAA3A67-BD4C-4AC3-9B62-B682C5AAABCE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Packet number encryption
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:13:54 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20180202150812.GA12313@ubuntu-dmitri>
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Roberto Peon <fenix@fb.com>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>, Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
To: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
References: <827BA6F8-5CA8-420A-B18B-60D8BC134A46@fb.com> <CA+9kkMDvp64NspznEuVy2tu8Eh1xmFkXu5S0AtDwbZKQ9Kq2fA@mail.gmail.com> <7F0C8A1D-1CE8-44E1-B3A4-ACFCB19D1F12@fb.com> <CABkgnnVsx9ohKO95bsDbYpM+bgWb-HQiVW2Yn=XWG458uzNgtg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGD1bZbH2qz2WL0YsOJJ=j7V-Lkt_V6K1RQ+5ZhMAzOWEAvdGQ@mail.gmail.com> <A236CE0B-24C1-41F0-A80D-7DD966D291B7@trammell.ch> <CAM4esxTj6Jv4nv975SDzczx9QEG-18WNm7UC7WxDcjyN+PeVgA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM4esxR_L9OvkEQ3G8z=yK1VgPQDJTMWeB2ts7CSgtV_de9MiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAM4esxRVecQUJZwSv-+fV43CyTER-OY7H7WZGAKU0yT84qn6aA@mail.gmail.com> <26AC90FF-EDC0-431A-86D7-8F78555B5DB9@trammell.ch> <20180202150812.GA12313@ubuntu-dmitri>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/MbpLuMBlCB8cUG1ao3A8uOHBsd0>
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: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:14:01 -0000

> On 2 Feb 2018, at 16:08, Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:35:41AM +0100, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote:
>>> On 2 Feb 2018, at 01:47, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> as the true packet number will start at 0 (boo!) or 1 (yay!).
>> 
>> I actually have strong opinions on both sides of this argument, so
>> I think I’ll go off in the corner and have a pointless fight with
>> myself on this one.
> 
> How strong is the preference for starting off the packet sequence with
> zero?  Zero is such a convenient (and efficient) special value,
> programming-wise.

Yeah, in this case, starting at one is far preferable so as to use 0 as the special value, but counting from one in general just feels dirty to people who grew up with C.

(This bikeshed has been painted so often that it's made of paint, though, so I apologize for even referring to it in passing.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email