IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 22 November 2017 12:16 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 10D3B129417 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 04:16:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 qhcBr5aA93DV for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 04:16:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC02D129400 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 04:16:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2959; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1511353017; x=1512562617; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Vy7QlbfRBO+MtcYXAtUCqFiwbrXMN+wCOirRy/FikAQ=; b=GCI5NxvtGhAvjkYQyrrkSNVaihfrgrwj5P08i4SSkRtJgZsUfZU+izpQ qI/E3OG7jwvUGmEHpYa8yjV+JV5equK97xmzXPf56ZNujtxVcop98ZjNP SeRUIShqZXvNF4Zen9v92y5xHuUJn/YaNTqiF6dCckmwBvR2F4gPOYRp2 Q=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ByAQD9aBVa/xbLJq1bGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYMOggKEJosTkB6YdgcDhTsChVoVAQEBAQEBAQEBayiFHwEFI1YQCxgqAgJXBgEMCAEBih6oR4InincBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQERD4M6hW6DAogwgmMFokCESYIojhuMBIdJljeBOjUjgXU0IQgdFUmCZYJbHIFoQItGAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,436,1505779200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="416138"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Nov 2017 12:16:55 +0000
Received: from [10.61.246.10] ([10.61.246.10]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAMCGtpT012918; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:16:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at
To: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Lars Eggert <lars@netapp.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <AFEE7BBA-E5DC-4064-AA19-33921EAF4C01@mnot.net> <21B07D8C-C4A1-4321-9E43-61C9DB9DC4CA@trammell.ch> <fd09b775-4c0e-9d99-e49c-421212f2e5e4@cs.tcd.ie> <F4F7A438-F30F-406B-9971-DA05DA458B44@netapp.com> <C8DDB9E3-C8F9-49CB-8C6D-E381C00AC02D@trammell.ch> <CCB67783-2760-44A3-979D-DEDB81ECB187@netapp.com> <253F0249-3FCB-4543-9DB6-BA4F5ABA84CA@mnot.net> <918BF809-338D-4FE9-A7B8-887E532C7FA8@trammell.ch>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <fd3af24e-b0cd-6a3b-c4d6-6ef6c17569aa@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:16:08 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <918BF809-338D-4FE9-A7B8-887E532C7FA8@trammell.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SuDweM0n0okX2BkFvuL9jPS2XXUqaVa1M"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/hhOAbjJyHlGcgOxXivjX1D29FGI>
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, 22 Nov 2017 12:16:59 -0000

Hard to follow the bouncing ball here, but on these two points and
elsewhere:


On 11/22/17 1:07 PM, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote:
>
> The DT did not, but the WG discussed it after the DT report. I'll take your statement here as an indication that the rough consensus I thought I saw for the spin bit as harmless and useful in Singapore and on the list afterward is not an impression shared by the chairs and the rest of the WG.

Mark did say that he was speaking as a contributor.

On the general point, general security considerations principles should
apply.  If we know how to abuse a field, we should state the risk.  So
long as the benefit is articulated, at that point the E in IETF kicks
in: make your design tradeoffs.  That's what engineers do.  Network
management is often the flipside of privacy, so...

> 'Night. I'm off to enjoy the last nice day in Zürich.

Is Armageddon coming?  I missed the memo.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email