Re: Structuring the BKK spin bit discussion

Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 30 October 2018 23:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jri.ietf@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 00A87130DC7 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:52:32 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 nts72xjPDQvv for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (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 51C3F1277CC for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id p17so3833034lfh.4 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uJRylu7yfNIH1qajDRBOa8OlbQWsBacCcbkjqJsDIrI=; b=ZsQlLY+Tc9JTLK+8Q22e7CYaNCcDYRyjvdarbdSXDvoTnQchXJuc70jWoWA17E/AnF ULUdAzN3q+gb9s6lhg1NgFNKTmEJFSbe7ZBsSl0O/lGUZP/0ART5qcaNX14pg/pajf4y rITqSbz2s35erpDiEseTxkKEA3QLaR4Gk0cHy64RH5CpNILTRG9Fci4zt222pCtNC52H xO5jHhmVz0HTl+t1E1NcPAkQ9sxRuvh0mmOM/dOJV7l0ZN0lG1109JAUlP8WoeQ6o8gh PpeeT2X8vHakSM0MUwN2E2zszXljgLP7ztkZdnfXkqHSgY4zRvnLjYLUnWPZQgWzN9FG mpXQ==
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=uJRylu7yfNIH1qajDRBOa8OlbQWsBacCcbkjqJsDIrI=; b=nVJW9i1ZSINq995f6lTFafRcCtJBDmePf908dcVcPaNc+Kh070N5qMkBEG/lhTFveV 7HkcDXh72HJSEXn9cKI5SctfTey7JEvirQfHvf+y1PqCE+fjeV9bbh5YPvu5/kJRKy0D WvkB7rOb0+td+OW6G+6VwlfFElXIWuHgk+/GXvHoOpiztZpC+ymAhUF2i1ucINGDUuIi CoVg13cgzYkN2rDJDVf7pU9VB7PkeiDtqacbtTHHiWBzc26bBcG9rdLM/xXxvyLmBn9A U2ntivacWc55xLHiXF+TkvJvbi3qVpYdBILDhWSqFU5Cnu5/qbJE55eJlkw3caLLU2aW MS7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLi0+kKZKGe52j4NNEa4SkKYB3LMpXBuEpvqVTQcDhkZZp3kssI bP3eot8Hu9TaonkDuieeiiR0idn2KNCz5P/YxEyeig==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5eZK7IlX88Pt+mPvwrij+7+EixS8soOu6zVuop93jk2rAWxkHDf/66zUfBMLyQlLkGD33orzCMGdVckoQas1is=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:2395:: with SMTP id j143mr390388lfj.107.1540943548322; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <18A2F994-0E82-48E4-875D-93C674483D49@eggert.org> <20181029160802.GD7258@ubuntu-dmitri> <8268B90E-F109-424C-91A8-DB7BFE208F53@huitema.net> <CABkgnnU7W-_o_EGZWpJvTGRSm0KiL-hS7q_oQ6kT3LBoNKHGhw@mail.gmail.com> <5E1AB9AC-D24F-4E0D-9925-57816C5314A4@trammell.ch> <a088c411-1acc-8b0f-fc1b-8c79ce6f1cd7@huitema.net> <DB6PR10MB1766E6B29792BB4401FF38F0ACCC0@DB6PR10MB1766.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <HE1PR0701MB23939472CAA7CC7C1CD42BB1E2CC0@HE1PR0701MB2393.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <65907d96-a525-dcd0-39cd-678c52d26ab6@huitema.net> <CABkgnnVCveXr2GUsx2ZyKNf08VaCh+Ts-T=5wD3_-8Pqk2xRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVCveXr2GUsx2ZyKNf08VaCh+Ts-T=5wD3_-8Pqk2xRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:52:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CACpbDccP7zw6yUyMs0iyAzByBDjprsoBbwey3c0t7wXEddvrvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Structuring the BKK spin bit discussion
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, =?UTF-8?Q?Mikkel_Fahn=C3=B8e_J=C3=B8rgensen?= <mikkelfj@gmail.com>, Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d118a205797ae0a9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/hvKJCFpjrA8i4k7J4lSbl8yHdbE>
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, 30 Oct 2018 23:52:32 -0000

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 3:55 PM Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:42 AM Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>;
> wrote:
> > Mikkel is correct, we may not want a purely random per connection
> behavior, but rather something "random per destination". This would better
> mimic the opt-out behavior of a privacy-sensitive endpoint, which would
> always opt out when contacting a specific destination. If I had to
> implement it, I would not use a PRNG, but rather something compute the hash
> of a local secret and either the peer address or the peer name. That way,
> the client would opt out for all 16 Netflix connections, or for none of
> them.
>
> Or are we looking for random per-path?
>
> That notion would seem to tilt the balance more in favour of the
> "discretionary" option over the "negotiated" one on the basis that
> spinning/not doesn't become a linkability consideration.
>

Yes, per path makes sense to me. I think the linkability concern here is
weak, but it doesn't hurt any to do this per path.