IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Spin bit decision

"Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch> Tue, 02 October 2018 13:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@trammell.ch>
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 54AC81292F1 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 06:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vNivBNY6m8KK for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 06:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gozo.iway.ch (gozo.iway.ch [IPv6:2001:8e0:40:325::36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71217127598 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 06:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gozo.iway.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59115341AF6; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:01:42 +0200 (CEST)
X-Iway-Path: 0
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ACF/14501.14531); Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:01:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from switchplus-mail.ch (switchplus-mail.ch [212.25.8.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gozo.iway.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:01:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [195.176.110.228] (account ietf@trammell.ch HELO public-docking-etx-1035.ethz.ch) by switchplus-mail.ch (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.18) with ESMTPSA id 69089750; Tue, 02 Oct 2018 15:01:41 +0200
From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
Message-Id: <69FB07C4-8DCD-448F-A4B9-9C68E70E9907@trammell.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F0695ED7-41F3-4726-B263-DC544361A7ED"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Subject: Re: Spin bit decision
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 15:01:40 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAN1APdcn8Fjbz7XGT4mkCaS503fFCPXaz0X6Qem6eFY4LtD4rg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, "<alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com>" <alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
To: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>
References: <14531_1538460420_5BB30B04_14531_237_4_c0f3a391-9897-80b0-575b-aa73edad0d52@orange.com> <9A63F295-5DC5-4992-9A9C-A98F72C8430D@eggert.org> <22440_1538469028_5BB32CA4_22440_292_2_8e00a462-2bbf-acf0-1195-74269a0c2fbd@orange.com> <3E3DBC15-FE42-47CF-AF7A-1F2597ED2390@eggert.org> <24019_1538484216_5BB367F8_24019_26_1_8e6b0d8e-78f0-56c7-e731-da2ff22cb194@orange.com> <08A9C80F-59E6-46EE-A4D4-1F78F5085CF7@eggert.org> <CAN1APdcn8Fjbz7XGT4mkCaS503fFCPXaz0X6Qem6eFY4LtD4rg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/lDJAV5MrCPHUUfmdFbzMGK1Dm3o>
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, 02 Oct 2018 13:01:47 -0000

Yes. See the last two paragraphs of section 6 of the current (TSVWG) full spin bit draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-trammell-tsvwg-spin-00.

> On 2 Oct 2018, at 14:59, Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Are there any concerns about impact and how to handle or ignore malicious manipulation of the spin either by endpoint or a middlebox?
> 
> 
> 
> On 2 October 2018 at 14.56.16, Lars Eggert (lars@eggert.org) wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> again, as an individual:
>> 
>> On 2018-10-2, at 15:41, <alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com> <alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com> wrote:
>> > Well, if the spec says that en endpoint MUST copy of flip a bit, an implementor would be fairly ill-advised not do comply.
>> 
>> sure, it may be "ill-advised", but in practice, it won't affect interop at all.
>> 
>> > And nothing prevents from adding a "does it spin ?" criterion to the interop test suite.
>> 
>> We can certainly consider this - it may give us some data about the current capabilities and configurations of the participating stacks.
>> 
>> > Clearly you now have this degree of freedom: weaken that MUST into a MAY or a SHOULD, separately for each role. But for what purpose ?
>> 
>> The point I'm trying to make is that it in practice doesn't matter if the spec says "MUST", "SHOULD" or "MAY", since it doesn't affect interop, and doesn't affect performance. Essentially, each stack can decide in isolation whether to spin, echo, do nothing, grease the bits, etc., no matter what language we put in the spec.
>> 
>> Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email