IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption

Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> Wed, 04 April 2018 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.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 070E212D7E5 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=litespeedtech-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 LQHyTAXwY44J for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x232.google.com (mail-qk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::232]) (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 1840C12D775 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 132so23608164qkd.5 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=litespeedtech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=A/rmTh3NIyQpN55/OO4wnPI06HvPcEryBWWa9iB9BxI=; b=GyU4Y+oQiau/d/+8LtrEgxojDEgbxmMyCDkTXeK9salJpcozHMt1ct5vGPoER6Wuiu d9OdcAyJSLFbcDf9pmpPl0XFBfm95z5KP2ZyhTW+5eVQTbVV3EOGHf3lZd05p/qWs6hC DlRG1UjFn16kCNIzfvbrUxhQ3nIDpJvzYEJci8N6uSNBywMDbuuOQNBPnQho63Wcpj7J GFvzWv4ZJrlbwBR9xMIjITV7+yqsGNpkpu8wVO5koc110fktSaXXvF3Yg4CE1zI9eJtj 7v5qeLRzXy9ftz1ZfMkTu9wGvVj6Id5rUe0biuIqlZfFU74QIR0p+RsQTJeiebZ2Dvnk 7kqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=A/rmTh3NIyQpN55/OO4wnPI06HvPcEryBWWa9iB9BxI=; b=pDa1sbSquJ2oziVUiL+OzkYnbRuzJNqPs6aZnDJkE4YOMXsHBQzIrUOU8HyJ47UL1N wo3gb39GGrE58hx4mp9eUKXr29h5JeSoNvDCkKLHQQgreIRIe803RVLxZtlt/FPHzBz0 aYtM7li3Z2vZvwB6oVA6lkVi7Eo+N4ZfVqQ9XvhLNIpm54eUHdesG+idc7qrpoTPBtY6 wWAuIHT2ApUfWmnKqFrkKfgb6kUlUNJkqi95eBOW6iZtbk0/AF3W2CbGUcZoOQwGI0b8 7QnIAllFVzxmZkOh1dKDdLyEusFePxzoyTB2fwhgwTVYVtzswf9DnM4N1ZJzCqOv8Xlz PLxg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBf3DSb5mMLeFXeKGnaYlnR9BV9fwd0+eDt1XIxPIsjPoMKQU/s s+krYE8d4tXr+Zw9vfqEsSf0FA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49Mt/wyahhIFomOVnJC54hbplGkUd/bJlDpG//wFznKnVBwzffNWLuWh6Ks5ooe0wWewfV57Q==
X-Received: by 10.55.13.82 with SMTP id 79mr25391004qkn.280.1522867709205; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ubuntu-dmitri (ool-2f1636b6.static.optonline.net. [47.22.54.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n58sm4971695qta.34.2018.04.04.11.48.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 14:48:26 -0400
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Subject: Re: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption
Message-ID: <20180404184825.GB12306@ubuntu-dmitri>
Mail-Followup-To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
References: <1F436ED13A22A246A59CA374CBC543998B5CDAD4@ORSMSX111.amr.corp.intel.com> <BBB8D1DE-25F8-4F3D-B274-C317848DE872@akamai.com> <CAN1APdd=47b2eXkvMg+Q_+P254xo4vo-Tu-YQu6XoUGMByO_eQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gMpz4MpdmrHLtC8MvTf5uO9LjD915jM-i2LfpKY384O2w@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR0702MB3611A67E764EE1C7D1644FAD84AD0@HE1PR0702MB3611.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <d8e35569-e939-4064-9ec4-2cccfba2f341@huitema.net> <CACpbDccqKoF-Y1poHMN2cLOK9GOuvtMTPsF-QEen3b30kUo9bg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gNffwpraF-H2LQBF33vUhYFx0bi_UXJ3N14k4Xj4NmWUw@mail.gmail.com> <40C1F6FE-2B2C-469F-8F98-66329703ED50@mnot.net> <SN1PR08MB1854965F7330BDE761584191DAA40@SN1PR08MB1854.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <SN1PR08MB1854965F7330BDE761584191DAA40@SN1PR08MB1854.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/lnk0qS7NKnqf1xaolTPqCalf01A>
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, 04 Apr 2018 18:48:32 -0000

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:38:18PM +0000, Mike Bishop wrote:
> When you get right down to it, I'm sympathetic to the cost argument,
> but it doesn't outweigh the other two.  A given server can (I
> presume) sustain dramatically more Telnet connections than it can
> SSH connections, but people who advocate continuing to use Telnet
> for that reason are roundly ridiculed..  SSH has a different, better
> security profile and those differences justify the cost.  TCP versus
> QUIC seems similar.

We are comparing HTTPS with QUIC -- thus the telnet/SSH analogy
is not applicable.

  - Dmitri.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email