IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Invariants draft

Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com> Mon, 04 December 2017 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mikkelfj@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 B6666127698 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 07:10:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 DLA5AGsL_jIT for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 07:10:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x22e.google.com (mail-it0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22e]) (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 CEE1E1275C5 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 07:10:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id p139so13460239itb.1 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 07:10:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LG4TUm5d6MVy4G1Vxz4uBudaXeefpqEJp+ZirKer1Vg=; b=QcLtXdCiLKartLjWFytpNlgaNXtKz5Mzvd/OGoHV29XFaEvILUKjbDuuyekImHDeUq ECB9k6rYJP8VZB4tVc8ru5rqCVX4AKcknG06ndCRAjXUUdmXQaYOO8GNILNaxcCSwrqK lEul2y9fg4+PCdeWvzVjOFZ8EVC4BOO8y9UVk+EK9zlyWCLrWwx6HM8oKj5U6CT1T7bt kdhFne+qorRbt5JsAqDgDjzDdo4v1ZOhC0NY4Jl4Kt0+JWOIcaBd0VuB+D7Dq6GoIS7/ qLXTLg3vqiFugDHSHiPkUapn2n8hKVVN32PXkAq+kJKPPUPBei8DTuj8b5YfmH6ivAGH 9VjQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LG4TUm5d6MVy4G1Vxz4uBudaXeefpqEJp+ZirKer1Vg=; b=B9chBC3P0X4QM43DteiunnIKkdY4qc/L1blcwHuw9ef63BFbeaaZGyvjOikkbC/Gxb ok107Y+qFvCKyjPXmoLbaqSIE/SCLYzG7dEVCeASC1KtOfl3lj87WZMddj0IF6u1B+JO qGh3izb19P07TYF+FJ89+sBliCabeBos3kWt7PXKgNiXg1F2wR37+OgnNDn8fJLUzM9K MtcLz7WxEFQRxM93GcO9x9aWIrqQXpf0EMefNl52dsNkJ+WAtTYY8+cAXsuhUlCtPBZY lPoHZfxJNOLjczs6Ks7zgEvXe0Sa3z7NlPh5YKpUjtycdgGXixzcboH/btwKnWRAKIjW dGtw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6qszED6LH2ogVEW/XzqHCHFdBFgTSKEMv8A9Dmm3hUVdHQh2Sy vC4DqqHff8I+Mc+ZkOarSk2Wom4QtFlOuWKbjnA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMagOVOSOzYpkHYat8Cw3o2XrUVJtE6bmvb7JJNwEWywsml3ioUfYAUn9nEut52awjSLATQOi3VEIzURYqHhTL4=
X-Received: by 10.36.0.209 with SMTP id 200mr13888470ita.55.1512400201234; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 07:10:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:10:00 -0500
From: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2EC600A4-0FD3-4136-8022-B3F944E67A19@in-panik.de>
References: <CABkgnnVr7jQ2=fFM+OOgk0-=Fseze8fT3xwWBOj-4CWTOtbq1Q@mail.gmail.com> <2EC600A4-0FD3-4136-8022-B3F944E67A19@in-panik.de>
X-Mailer: Airmail (420)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 10:10:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN1APdfhz2mZordUkeWbnzZx_BvPrB7U9Ux3_fvpFtgRwgY49g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Invariants draft
To: "Philipp S. Tiesel" <phils@in-panik.de>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c14088c0be04055f851cdb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/bmPqLQIzRrPxTp9JUWtd_JStTIQ>
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: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 15:10:04 -0000

Something alongside: “Don’t send a version negotiation packet in replay to
a smaller packet”.


You could imagine a QUIC version that is behind a DoS protected network
where resources are highly constrained, such as battery powered sensor
networks. They might want define a QUIC version that allows for a small
initial packet size in order to save power and to reduce latency.

Invariants should be rather conservative and only ensure that changes are
consistently possible, not reduce the design space of new versions, IMHO.

Kind Regards,
Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen


On 4 December 2017 at 15.46.24, Philipp S. Tiesel (phils@in-panik.de) wrote:

Hi,

On 1. Dec 2017, at 05:09, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

I've just submitted a personal draft that describes the invariants
that I think we agreed to in Singapore.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-quic-invariants


Reading the draft, I wondered whether we should put some rudimentary
amplification attack mitigation in the invariant version negation
description.

Something alongside: “Don’t send a version negotiation packet in replay to
a smaller packet”.

AVE!
  Philipp S. Tiesel / phils…

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email