IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Higher layer comments on stream 0 proposal, WG schedule, and gQUIC

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Wed, 23 May 2018 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 E63A112E8EE for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 QXSD_GNbEUHZ for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB68912D7F5 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050095.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w4NKGeII001845; Wed, 23 May 2018 21:23:19 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=aopgM+ZgDdJiorM/l3AxCelP4UMqKMKnrUscayt1vZY=; b=Sh+Wh2VYQ/pkvH0mz2McUlTrpzTGZCKQHN6hg6wcrThJF73SPQOoy9wnCAw9ST6ABhZw c2Nxv1xkHJIoS8HE/Cs0uPXajqfW72fFEVEnrTLIVRayKTZs4wij8BcyUBDXl0IA/zXg OMU/0KLf+H3ZoMc1BsBzfHeq/VGFHFPNURzqjowv0qsghhcptJtYPogk8S1xyBkiUZhw HUi8WxGzz1j9ea/QIRUTVAKkBujFEgFsCAKvxmJj9MZTpPU9VJjSb+JFdquLzZjF398V eI6S/9JEgxdopfc6WurI3FOFfZWDDMSpEgcd7amRFCC0WDQLPDcf5RzgbMkEyFMTLOd1 CA==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2j5e90r6ca-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 May 2018 21:23:19 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w4NKGIIq028042; Wed, 23 May 2018 16:23:17 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.25.34]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2j2f8um84f-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 May 2018 16:23:17 -0400
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.101) by ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1365.1; Wed, 23 May 2018 15:23:16 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.6.131]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.6.131]) with mapi id 15.00.1365.000; Wed, 23 May 2018 15:23:16 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Higher layer comments on stream 0 proposal, WG schedule, and gQUIC
Thread-Topic: Higher layer comments on stream 0 proposal, WG schedule, and gQUIC
Thread-Index: AQHT8tMOC2K7YAwKpUaetsFygE0BU6Q90uAA
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:23:16 +0000
Message-ID: <82DC1097-F6AB-426C-90B1-010C65A0F4BE@akamai.com>
References: <CA+9kkMA0QnSmvbGOktngU+B-eC7CJFXLicEZfxQga6m6Z+gJLQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMA0QnSmvbGOktngU+B-eC7CJFXLicEZfxQga6m6Z+gJLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.d.0.180513
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.41.7]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_82DC1097F6AB426C90B1010C65A0F4BEakamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-05-23_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=869 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1805230199
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-05-23_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=800 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1805230199
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/W_A1kXHPWJQrGhOZjefk9YppNrg>
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, 23 May 2018 20:23:34 -0000

> The changes in TLS are also large enough that I expect that the deployment time to see significant penetration of the new libraries to be longer than it would be for the previous design.   Call it 9 months, with 3 months of error bar.

For what it’s worth, the next release of OpenSSL would have supported everything that’s needed for the prior QUIC crypto. We had some email chats with Chris, and in my view, this is no longer possible, which means it will fall to the next release, which will be gated by FIPS validation work and is probably similar timetable to yours, above.  Or folks will have to run off master, which many are reluctant to do.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email