IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Packet number encryption

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 06 February 2018 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 64E3412D7FC for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 07:35:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 2hSpleJJmOqF for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 07:35:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F008C124BE8 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 07:35:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE6ABEB3; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 15:35:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rxd5MqohjSff; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 15:35:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36DC9BE80; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 15:35:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1517931328; bh=EKlnE56Eu5QOeMqGtYw4xwyy7b15lLN4kUtB7tPXZ5M=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=XVPkWF0sHOddipeWLcXrtNtg+5zRdzobdVvAtKmflcBYzv8XmJS1SBfgMALBYRD4U YKDaLgWLYcSk8dt5NW3g8eHUqXYei1BF1nO3b5MfknLxEUKqGueBBEkOB/O4i2ZiZ7 HGSQ0eRZuGWPbmwWpfzB4RjXOC9JDEm+aFsKGuFs=
Subject: Re: Packet number encryption
To: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>, "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>, Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
Cc: Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb@microsoft.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Roberto Peon <fenix@fb.com>, "Lubashev, Igor" <ilubashe@akamai.com>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
References: <CABkgnnVyo3MmWtVULiV=FJTnR528qfY8-OmKGWAs0bCvri-a_g@mail.gmail.com> <2C515BE8694C6F4B9B6A578BCAC32E2F83BA1443@MBX021-W3-CA-2.exch021.domain.local> <BY2PR15MB07757473DB9788558B902EB5CDF80@BY2PR15MB0775.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD861B7F@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> <e529144067624fcba636fc8c24ee3ff4@usma1ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com> <BY2PR15MB07754D83A1721F2BD742359BCDFE0@BY2PR15MB0775.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <2CD9DC43-D69B-43F0-8474-DFE798850A52@akamai.com> <CAGD1bZaUuNxqpDkn62B0wWcFD8=mCUWrAwWGG-rAOxH7Mf1=cQ@mail.gmail.com> <CY4PR21MB01334E30C7AF6AE75F58EEFDB6FE0@CY4PR21MB0133.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <CAGD1bZaxrqzdkk0wxRaULwOTgg6wnrSrXNBK31s4uxdozaACBA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGD1bZbOAaSBcQw4nVtGuwRunaAW8MYHq9yPxNN6DdKHzt5HtQ@mail.gmail.com> <2102BDC2-62C0-4A76-8ADE-8167437E2D07@trammell.ch> <CAN1APde6o6=aCXuWajPFSU=jXv-ERdVHk=uyjM71uQ_uU-oMTg@mail.gmail.com> <8e833029-68b5-2787-3897-a0f7818a259f@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=5BB5A6EA5765D2C5863CAE275AB2FAF17B172BEA; url=
Message-ID: <1de39727-eeec-0e7a-1e8b-5ed50433c5bd@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 15:35:27 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8e833029-68b5-2787-3897-a0f7818a259f@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qhUDrMPnlMpmfpNvsfvgKEZWoqxjhwM0P"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/Tc1XJeCuxNh5PKAkDkki_1-xdLE>
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, 06 Feb 2018 15:35:32 -0000


On 06/02/18 15:23, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> 
> It's also my understanding that we do agree that packet number
> encryption does not help likability (and thereby privacy) a lot, or at
> least that the benefits we might get (or not) do not justify the
> additional complexity.

FWIW, which isn't much, I don't (yet) agree to the above.
I reckon it'll be a while before we know how linkability
pans out. I do agree that packet number encryption is not
a panacea for unlinkability, but it may help, or may even
end up being required, to do a good job wrt linkability.

I also heard people say it was less complex for them so
"additional complexity" may also not be quite right. (I
guess "differently complex" is correct though.)

S.

-- 
PGP key change time for me.
New-ID 7B172BEA; old-ID 805F8DA2 expires Jan 24 2018.
NewWithOld sigs in keyservers.
Sorry if that mucks something up;-)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email