IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 01 May 2018 00:34 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@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 B59B912DA18 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ChxQr-VQPW81 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x243.google.com (mail-ot0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::243]) (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 64B9E12D965 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x243.google.com with SMTP id l13-v6so11528824otk.9 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LMXbF2ageFrbPLs7x+wI58ADDfDqNZcJMDUn3fzmHZw=; b=HwQK4WPaS/dyWy/LfqRMQTZyLxhUBvsmGMzaIFV8eMdvYnG77xWNEyJ0X/Tu53plrZ r/4Bp9tZ5diTB+YHewAT10v2zFkiXVOQdw7YjlzCvMD+YKeSFhfqmusNEDDSia0V9QGW rJN4U/dj2dEKQAxzIucIsDMOfsYmyVdvswyalo+Y2VWTrvxTiQ49Ti6jKrPUsG0tEw2l q7QmF1w06QJyuQB3qImSk6682/27A9gKvDItp1QO0AEcfu6uWk7U2gRGfjsJOlGZxw9h Sg2aYXNlrZOm/x9j5kkoVyQCPWC1mcMic7BlPRuRGaIp4Y66r27FOecB5SJ3qgjffcuI PovQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LMXbF2ageFrbPLs7x+wI58ADDfDqNZcJMDUn3fzmHZw=; b=mnzcHA1jgSqjlemwzTvcj7hQ7fj8ExEKqlmeGgNyCafi5KouDqzewloX2/Yz8cFb3m tH3bp+qPMnGuf3MQjSufASJZTKhEkWIOn93gV2mTL14mh8wM/8roijw/kasPvnpi4CSK 9y8dmPbKWj/ltur8a/4Vcf9arOMATnaZPbG5MJeomWrbiWK+m6ZynYGMf/qMBXqjfl2u 2YZ3iXoRkqvflkpYBUHstmLzw7KIdvqGBjVg1tLsM83Jj5Z046gQWERm64eACcI188WS Ngj97EbbbBJx/AXfkC96syriOSML9kvW+j6uAfNihTo78oECYodfryfR66Xi3nWpP4U7 6PjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tByUrL8UPPkjwygE5hognx77LzK8jDv+rHRXGbW9gtWGPXmUHKD w511ClQD4qdJvrORGUFENI2cDdfBZCtULavbgZg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrrwWKVmjJLVFLEepc/ReW4BRRhF9q9bA7J5r8ezujtuGy63ZoIfyGEOX7qSGpU7aEGR9PaxqXV41gaso0gMFM=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:2602:: with SMTP id a2-v6mr5753336otb.392.1525134859693; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a9d:29ce:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR21MB0638343B80FE5342860ADD4CB6810@MWHPR21MB0638.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <7fd34142-2e14-e383-1f65-bc3ca657576c@huitema.net> <ae7a63fe-0a32-893f-aa6b-e8d97b8ba87a@huitema.net> <1F436ED13A22A246A59CA374CBC543998B60C6DD@ORSMSX111.amr.corp.intel.com> <SN1PR08MB1854FD2461597D81BEE31ED6DA8F0@SN1PR08MB1854.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAKcm_gMRPXgCoZ958Oj4_Pnkvmc9a7PgNVS0iae0hCW7bLKqng@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR08MB18545D0554DED1F83862EBFBDA8F0@SN1PR08MB1854.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAKcm_gNMTQg-pV8vTXkMCTh48QPZ_ujyFSEKRYf+WurUFytaWw@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzwCYrOZULG3iVmDFp97nr=M5=Gufo8TZjOGQVFUpsn0bQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxqDcPXJUE83KVnDiU23PvqDcTCrc6rRMw09FexjJA-Y6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzwjYE6EdvFtOXJMVQnutbVQ4YY+=XsQFzKwHzqWzZ4U+w@mail.gmail.com> <d32ade7b56bf4651952659307c08893b@usma1ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CANatvzwHtCn8rLB8npf3i7PGyYZhVDRd2uojh5hv3uxtFPEsSA@mail.gmail.com> <58447D8E-782C-431C-8FC3-71124B10A047@trammell.ch> <CACpbDcdfF9w3qqrH1eB0sGU_4vheD9aMP5EXnp1o3Y19N19NUg@mail.gmail.com> <e8b4931a-3931-5b8d-8dad-3ca1939d5542@huitema.net> <CAKcm_gPaj3o-VTdA_0+Kk+nTcVJrYcs_BMyOiDGXKub3gB=GLg@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR21MB063869878060E850137210FEB6820@MWHPR21MB0638.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnWLnKYeein9ptdCOkVhMq13M1HLxubHugOaybhMQTnkOA@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR21MB0638343B80FE5342860ADD4CB6810@MWHPR21MB0638.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 10:34:18 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnV6QO83jdUBY4FqcqgnEtCPOS2A+vQ=ocGBtkECYxjemw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption
To: Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb@microsoft.com>
Cc: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>, huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>, "Lubashev, Igor" <ilubashe@akamai.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>, Erik Kline <ek@google.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, "Deval, Manasi" <manasi.deval@intel.com>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/bechoyKoVrzGHnxh0rjehIuaaMU>
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, 01 May 2018 00:34:23 -0000

Copying from the PR:

Closes #1174
Closes #1043
Closes #1048
Closes #1034
Closes #850
Closes #990
Closes #734

This isn't about other dependencies, but this is holding a bunch of issues open.

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Praveen Balasubramanian
<pravb@microsoft.com> wrote:
> What are the examples of issues that have a dependency on PNE? This is a transform that is applied post constructing the packet and then before decryption on receive, so I was assuming its very decoupled from the core protocol and could be added at the end. If any part of the protocol adds a dependency on PNE, then it’s a cause for concern because it precludes the no-op transform for datacenter option. So stating any such dependencies is important IMO.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 4:49 PM
> To: Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb@microsoft.com>
> Cc: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>; huitema <huitema@huitema.net>; Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>; Lubashev, Igor <ilubashe@akamai.com>; Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>; Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>; Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>; Erik Kline <ek@google.com>; IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>; Deval, Manasi <manasi.deval@intel.com>; Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> Also, what is the urgency behind getting PNE adopted – is it blocking
>> progress on interop or other issues?
>
> Yes.  There are a considerable number of issues backing up behind this now.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email