IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption

Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> Wed, 02 May 2018 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.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 1F77F12D879 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2018 06:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=litespeedtech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 AcadfdJfcgo3 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2018 06:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x232.google.com (mail-qk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::232]) (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 AA66612E866 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 May 2018 06:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id s70so11121141qks.13 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 May 2018 06:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=litespeedtech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=nsIeLMQTDSSCjHNPSNrdRiGtBLfmw2KscW5760RN9jU=; b=OrMoYNA5jF8MYKc87XcWbpLzznoKEHr4lX0eBzOKUB8+VeF4i1W8ydjadE13fmkeD4 HLNl6jT/RW9zpX0B1OdlhhXAJ7B9edkes2ZJj/3M5ZkJKXpWxx0MjufpaHOPWQsMMk89 wrooU7CmZvZzmLBYBG2sCZ9ZdImMZM8WGbaWDV6XFPz9mWQyq9oNp1uVQV2lx4O5j89F PkOqZDOxOVagxuJzsXKv4fRuen2j1H/b1ZZ51b6NONzCTdMGYvfktT+fKc8vkUA2PDTr ZmiNTer3lkCNc1wGhoUa6rIHoOHDt4lJxgrNNQ8/+jelb/8XM27zeKSQPS+94/Gz46Oj MIQw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=nsIeLMQTDSSCjHNPSNrdRiGtBLfmw2KscW5760RN9jU=; b=CpRw/Md2aH4x4qLShfqsV2h1uBVJbEK8XRyC176DZCUzQeTukNziKCVPoqigfHENrF jIYX5wnSTQG/xSYYcgD9Kt6Fvuv42ZsAmVAmLDmBZ3+I35a9JDgqgU64ZeVuonSGiEN8 uAoQU+wuF+k5s4V2vgnJhIFZJ1o8IBREaLv+NDWiZ0LDU4kCTepOAiomFqvxkCmRwfQ4 cVDIRQOzCC+I0EXrUYFmH4jRWsB9SeoEEUB4W6Y2+4ZyRgcSrfUDeFnGqmchdt91sGzu D6mKvgL/nS6I8MNnw+Rfj1RZGwLtvOSP2oazkWmu2YybhBiYMEcdWHcV2eytdFifC6A5 l6HQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBZVwz17HHrc1X3iXUZA1683KHeOPiAimHtuKDNE+Xg6KBtfzR+ fNDQk1VmBskmPDraY9T1K1L2HA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZp23SrKJ1qB1qAXCd/RKix9uw7YaQ0CAC4QlZvlHWSSukyHpcmKxNZcvNwyzx7HPFSm/wVz2A==
X-Received: by 10.55.41.20 with SMTP id p20mr16024480qkh.410.1525266709740; Wed, 02 May 2018 06:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ubuntu-dmitri (ool-2f1636b6.static.optonline.net. [47.22.54.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i63-v6sm8935142qtb.52.2018.05.02.06.11.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 May 2018 06:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 09:11:39 -0400
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
To: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb@microsoft.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption
Message-ID: <20180502131138.GA29220@ubuntu-dmitri>
Mail-Followup-To: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb@microsoft.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
References: <01AE46C6-682C-4A21-84CD-1D8DAD6F49D9@fb.com> <CACpbDcdnmHrWMCShYd1pEDBervRKfO1pMUM8hb4tkK9nqH1Mdw@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR21MB06386100B48E17A059B5A04EB6800@MWHPR21MB0638.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <20180502121018.GF5742@akamai.com> <4C049C27-FAB7-4CF4-8ABE-DABDE8CD0F8B@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4C049C27-FAB7-4CF4-8ABE-DABDE8CD0F8B@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/QE_8bv4vdo1Fg_-Yl_6gOFi4akc>
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: Wed, 02 May 2018 13:11:54 -0000

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 02:46:51PM +0200, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> [...] I also learned during my time in the IEFT that complexity itself
> can be a barrier for deployment that should not be underestimated. If
> people don’t understand the specs we write, they will not be able
> to implement (and maintain) our protocols, or at least not be able to
> implement it correctly which might be even worse for deployment and
> security (than not using them at all).

Agreed.

  - Dmitri.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email