Re: draft-misell-quic-bdp-token is asking for codepoints
Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> Mon, 22 January 2024 05:32 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 9D64BC14F614 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 21:32:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.104 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n48bVsXQ6W-D for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 21:32:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52f.google.com (mail-ed1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70BC3C14F5EF for <quic@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 21:31:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-55a684acf92so2665223a12.0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 21:31:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1705901503; x=1706506303; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KIl+dpj4qxHR/OZUx7tO82x4iWN3qcNaFvURj3Y4zMU=; b=hNbU2bE4+6Q2vYk7ywribt5AkwFNUyNbMKgI3ltUA3buJ2vO3x3qTnVUoi2WnkZ4y1 vb6Vuo6f9nJQQrs0gElmbHS90raCb472hkGra4W57mtDWC1QLEnAqBErDFuQZzCqTDWH qSuVUJo9WRdBqWKc+ykHEzW5+eRR+kmYwn4snejLftOq6K1ZIF0+dT3+91xe7cK2tVh/ qgTCQ4as9dZyCCrF8BY2+nLuWxmtM8kv1xhzr1PNMMSsY8m2osSMBC9jKjDmR41Ib33q t9LFv+R/zXiN5a70OaXkCOzohtYw/NPn7Ipee1/nl9U1/TqinpjZkor8nfE58wdlZUlQ XlBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1705901503; x=1706506303; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=KIl+dpj4qxHR/OZUx7tO82x4iWN3qcNaFvURj3Y4zMU=; b=p+BJxlmSGP2C+5hUVMe5jqAsWkRe1xNaKfSOIrtIxmlsqFkAleBBSzWEIB/XKr1Nft YvVEJOea/snXD6Q48VCKDWPbyqrnXFg/YwxQL0HDu45hm9idTVeI9nRUo1pC6WV9fTI0 1kAoclMj/cZ3gN3jnTUhgWB4I+U77bNFnUolN7Yrsw2enhxLHnllLEbGuseINjUCWbH+ +oABKGy/CLanjQ+2yMT2IMQi4yRLpWZsnGmf7vcQ1JRjEzg9HAmvBgd6Q6IGO6Fpirq9 1jIu6oe7xNnOMz9xh9fx1+8Vuhe/Gkxm+EtvmGBdv8UVQGyMK1WID2O0K2TZf/kdS0ZG Vk7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxIs/1oXO/bqzD3hlq4O9NjR1ItBSKTczCcNcLo/7OM9+dpl6/U ak7ILvzEepsWQvnQHmXcXJzK6fjekGDagbSB9aTNvfiDdUm5x6Vu7pJa2al4FCk6k6I/nh197ti N84zFFOY5H9udPGvLszSX9+wDsR2utDjd
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFt8p5Oa6Yqj7g8qLrOovPd/bcVDS8JI2X0qZROSwtzd4/QQKgSmBeHnpn8g5MXqOU1roNNYNuA4DUb5fldfGM=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:8744:b0:a2f:bb84:561 with SMTP id qo4-20020a170907874400b00a2fbb840561mr1494952ejc.128.1705901502505; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 21:31:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5661fdad-0f42-4aad-9765-dcbd5767ed43@betaapp.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5661fdad-0f42-4aad-9765-dcbd5767ed43@betaapp.fastmail.com>
From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 14:31:30 +0900
Message-ID: <CANatvzxE3bUjF78SNGiwUbUBdxzfWRGEaa_qFvzDF8HX1cqf6A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-misell-quic-bdp-token is asking for codepoints
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
Cc: quic@ietf.org, q@as207970.net, q@magicalcodewit.ch, Janardhan Iyengar <jri@fastly.com>, Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000142506060f822576"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/OQC0051VhFAcaDr5G9Vbi-LTfIc>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 05:32:06 -0000
2024年1月22日(月) 7:59 Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-misell-quic-bdp-token > > IANA has received a formal request related to this draft. As far as I can > tell, this is a different spelling of draft-kuhn-quic-bdpframe-extension, > just with real code points specified. The value chosen takes two bytes to > encode, which is fine. > Regarding the code point, doesn't RFC 9000 section 22.1.2 state that 4-byte or 8-byte code points should be used unless it is "especially sensitive to having a longer encoding?" My feeling is that transport parameters and error codes are not sensitive, as they are used only once per the lifetime of a connection. That said, I wonder if it is necessary to request a provisional registration for every individual draft. My experience has been that drafts submitted to the working group are discussed and revised. Then, as they mature, code points are fixed and registered. Generally speaking I think sending CC-related signals from the client is an idea worth exploring. At the same time, I am concerned that the design in the current form might have privacy concerns, as CC-related properties from the servers will be sent in clear when the client attempts to resume. This can become a vector for correlating connections, as in the past we have discussed that it would make sense for servers to issue multiple tokens for one connection (in which case those tokens are likely to contain the same properties). To paraphrase, my hope is that we will have something like this standardized with changes, and the question is if there is a need for provisional registration before doing that. > The draft is reasonably clear about how it operates. It differs from > draft-kuhn-quic-bdpframe-extension in that it uses NEW_TOKEN to > communicate. I don't see why implementations that operated this way > couldn't interoperate. That is, as far as interoperation is concretely > necessary in this case, which is to say "not really". > > As an expert on the registry, I've been asked to review this > registration. The fact that I think this is a bad idea is not a sufficient > reason to reject the registration. So I plan to let IANA know to go ahead. > > Before I do, I'm inviting Q and the working group to discuss this idea. > > Cheers, > Martin > > -- Kazuho Oku
- draft-misell-quic-bdp-token is asking for codepoi… Martin Thomson
- Re: draft-misell-quic-bdp-token is asking for cod… Kazuho Oku
- Re: draft-misell-quic-bdp-token is asking for cod… Martin Thomson
- Re: draft-misell-quic-bdp-token is asking for cod… Christian Huitema
- Re: draft-misell-quic-bdp-token is asking for cod… Marten Seemann
- Re: draft-misell-quic-bdp-token is asking for cod… Q Misell
- Re: draft-misell-quic-bdp-token is asking for cod… Christian Huitema
- Re: draft-misell-quic-bdp-token is asking for cod… Lucas Pardue
- Re: draft-misell-quic-bdp-token is asking for cod… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: draft-misell-quic-bdp-token is asking for cod… David Schinazi