Re: Key updates

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 08 August 2018 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.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 785FC130E25 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 13:21:25 -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=unavailable 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 cSl5HKoiX1Jq for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 13:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc2d.google.com (mail-yw1-xc2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2d]) (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 9594812F1A5 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 13:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc2d.google.com with SMTP id 139-v6so2527126ywg.12 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Aug 2018 13:21:23 -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=V174novbfpX01rY51EB2rvep6Mlw45GiZ2zqFO5pYTE=; b=Ppy9ul9gxIJdMZ4X/ajV7JgKzAY/k+Ga7WRorGQvU5BCBbG2Q+yevrHelKRX0nQSik ug1YLbZGyqn8v9nsnnKwUq/aiydMXzhXofsyj2zdOpabvVynBudDl1sjMU2qO1PUiI9o iCdLLcJ5QHuXj9qVOz2dEtNKI43Lnji0G95aGX6BL4+PpCLSkNcfbf4RSkSOev9cZU5d xxoiUF4FwNoh9y3JUTxwGOY+o/+yJXG7gsA582ol5AC/G2r/656ItT1O7BiWniT2zU/5 8QKIRBwkdMHRzpP2JBFOtAovrAeDcEm6OGBXaXV7hmnN8xjceFTh3iJEFHl5uCvafjqM /XwA==
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=V174novbfpX01rY51EB2rvep6Mlw45GiZ2zqFO5pYTE=; b=dmIEXM8deQL4bWvMa4Zelk+Zq01oQHKs1Yke7U65FzNc1jro2/0yzu1lnhp8V0lgI/ oR9qFwnYEMfnpTrBlVMG+bYW5q5PityK5An9fB+pQJstFsA5t6CnlpLOsZN1NUjnxrIc sRh3/6Rd2o49MNUoImfR+JGH0T4MYWUjYtm1wflAiNdjRSE6qpNwqjH5R8RgTSlszDeC R8c0pLsvOa1pEb29NWwothjgaSPSxovMYY2DfA2Fs1TXAnwlTRgdnRO1b8N9oesHYzs2 Ou4V+eiY5SGtpKk7y9CBzCkBFK2srSq//r/bFqcESh8+fU6TpYOWPUxFJ5EHSIbOKeuN kRpw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHo9NP9A8+CIn3dlK2pWTk+bLWfp9Ir5aApGeaDAGIfiQ/dLPvV NWUqDfUMa+sFnEG13NylEMwWTgcYLV4Zsym6hpM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPwSG5IqoViI3C8dHE9Ek+GN+S9KW90rCTjKnq5QOkB6cxTGkXoEy05MJ+A4e9rRYm6J2RCEaQA+tNaenOmiIBc=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:a085:: with SMTP id y5-v6mr2301582ybh.110.1533759682464; Wed, 08 Aug 2018 13:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABkgnnW9-Jn1CH0rSwbtDmMrOZ+jstugVsOpWtShDJgT_KSyOw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gPXFXZc4ysm7ugG0T8GTWjgcO9hvO6ATj0MRiEufie=bQ@mail.gmail.com> <193166ED-C8C3-4A6B-9483-5546C34B5BDA@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <CABkgnnW1VhCKc+SDTGLJ0Q4BZZz9jJLmv3nOPrGTWWJe-dHTvg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnW1VhCKc+SDTGLJ0Q4BZZz9jJLmv3nOPrGTWWJe-dHTvg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:21:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-dC_4NhV5vJvH0tZAxoEmjd0ZnSbnVQJ=W03_YYA3E39w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Key updates
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000b510b0572f241aa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/ltPB_wDYQ2j09Ms-Bqsh9tJ9hqw>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 08 Aug 2018 20:21:25 -0000

FWIW ...

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 7:39 PM Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:06 PM Mirja Kühlewind
> <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch> wrote:
> > However, this brings us back to Martin’s other question: does it make
> sense to have a couple of reserved bits to make it easy to add a bit for
> the next version with minimal changes to the protocol machinery/wire image?
>
> I think that was Dirkjan who asked that question.
>
> The driving principle behind defining invariants was to avoid having
> to come back to this question repeatedly.  We have a version
> negotiation mechanism that allows us to change an awful lot between
> different protocol version.  We don't need to reserve a few bits
> because most of them are already reserved.
>

That was certainly my understanding when the working group adopted the
invariants draft and added a milestone for it.

Spencer