IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Consensus Calls for Transport/TLS issues, post-Cupertino

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 29 October 2019 23:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 E9D7A12008B for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=rtfm-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 4gpJhRJBTC4G for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (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 4180412006B for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id u22so561940lji.7 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=02Jw9YB/y83B7pxpkmQ3zfhC8MkJy93NouoM6BI6Cwg=; b=ltc7KHQ5Xts9cj1bzE19rpstr32Th4x2yYR/fTpzuCXHf2YXGNLD2iYM+RV43GgKgp PM0orlGW6J1z23cWSqSbAMkMDQJYz/aOhlZd+wkAtuj0G6cW1tvxwHzo+f55OQFswh6x P9Bj9O9LT20xHiws0D4kZFsxHXWOttxeogW0Ibm3o1pdBq92X6bTkHnm793AXGtVTx6Y PvJUYTN5nZwR+y6OXI+h6bqpWVMCQhv4PT/QUjDQccGtPj19MdiOcart5wXrKEZxHpUe dkGWG683G0TW032rJZ8qkd9Rl7hQv4kQNGSeiC4QJPMJfojPXwDhPfLaOgkgMN9lupZ7 6Skg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=02Jw9YB/y83B7pxpkmQ3zfhC8MkJy93NouoM6BI6Cwg=; b=WwZQvlPGTJSpxUB/HM3CDwGxzxI3eAXRk/ifGmYsObJ1Y4aU1FFcQ7zvJmNrfq7XCZ 8vZqdYNvHlT3nXNO6EoAp3JnhmIs3Spjrjc2dNVeaMFsP9YBme02GzVG8cDR+aHC0TPo QJ2wDfsSBIH0sBceeSY44HBFrw/mHXIx/DxGyQpLxybaniPTjqHICBFT2NnnUL/uJ7U7 Kc1CIjC08Vfiz+/fd4awNoAJP684Sah6ezVmVH1RvWj/cKTzCLz4P93Fc8gUpzcFmmbt 40p6nae3Eq9znJ4rkYcEHEWidFRnpFeD23tXlmxtSFV0ijfTYqto4ArfiGmwBvRjaaR5 03PQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVY3dGhSctf1mEdHhdt8TrFrLbzZTKmTueRk/PpMzBLtyW+QLiI 7F7oIY+zvEMEyl6J0VBXtcz61OkEboYsUmKrV3c0EQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyiXxQUX0yMEjN0J/sUACikbMoHGFeFrJDGgTz+4QHMgFTTuYrq75mYCktTEhZ4CEzJmAn3Pyc6JRkR61Z0joQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a303:: with SMTP id l3mr4070367lje.38.1572393568446; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4D6397AF-B411-4E67-AFD2-76E8F2AD462C@mnot.net> <CANatvzwYA-NN+p5jLu4vpgKY_G-ZoUM03CacZWS2FAPyPqgiiw@mail.gmail.com> <BN3PR00MB0083E9A10A58F4CCC7B8A5C6B3680@BN3PR00MB0083.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <22517ab5-9a6c-4486-b7ea-03badc064cbe@www.fastmail.com> <CANatvzx=RWB1Bio7tqX7nN_Vn1SfSaE69LZbuiU5pWeXP=BwNQ@mail.gmail.com> <DB6PR10MB176678E88FF226C2EB8FF78EAC680@DB6PR10MB1766.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CACpbDccOe01VBjwwy=mdSi5nync8bXa506OMTbLPpBH-hoj4Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPDSy+4S06qHBbitdH07Ah6gJYV+ZMY4huYLVGw14Q-n6isCrg@mail.gmail.com> <BN6PR2201MB17008576E4F8400B5DDB696FDA6B0@BN6PR2201MB1700.namprd22.prod.outlook.com> <CACpbDcf+n47NXh8XMEKx6n1fiJPZ+WyuivNmuBy1vKhZYZe6Uw@mail.gmail.com> <CAM4esxQYyTQPpF13v0AT4R=TcFOa9=UCn0nWsiqwMReYFOYDYg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBM2QGC+wx-UUKMkJDqxKscOgJfhqwPhr7QXg3h-GpZwfQ@mail.gmail.com> <4d408d7a-7c50-4ccc-a42b-fb2b71b0c507@www.fastmail.com> <CABcZeBMdQPMeu862uizQYKr451Y9mvwhZ4MT7h_te5ho_Y9DOQ@mail.gmail.com> <98b890c7-d57f-484c-88d5-056e4e607465@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <98b890c7-d57f-484c-88d5-056e4e607465@www.fastmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:58:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBP4BwBsySd8Phhg3fd3kTMoS6E=j5tit3pg7JKe7vrb6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Consensus Calls for Transport/TLS issues, post-Cupertino
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
Cc: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>, Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001845cb0596156823"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/bxa0ExVRsIUem3EC3ubjcGJj_r0>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 29 Oct 2019 23:59:32 -0000

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 8:32 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019, at 10:34, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 7:47 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019, at 10:01, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > >  > I think we're clearly going to need to spend some time on this. I
> don't
> > >  > think the spec is satisfactory as-is: we should be designing a
> > >  > transport that works for all use cases, not just H3. That said, I
> also
> > >  > don't agree that we need an additional explicit signal. We have
> one,
> > >  > it's called "ACK". We should figure out how to make that work.
> > >
> > >  I think that we've established that ACK doesn't work without
> something to push it along.
> >
> > No, I don't agree with that assessment.
>
> Well, I'd like some proof.  I shared what I believe to be proof earlier.
> Happy to walk through it again though.
>

Yeah, I think that would help. I've gotten a little lost on the list, so
maybe you can re-point it out to me.

-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email