RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at
"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> Sun, 26 November 2017 19:27 UTC
Return-Path: <acmorton@att.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 D42F71276AF for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 11:27:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 p1eUYffm6QFJ for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 11:27:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB3221201F8 for <quic@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 11:27:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049459.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id vAQJPCXS026634; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 14:27:22 -0500
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2efwxq4yar-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 26 Nov 2017 14:27:22 -0500
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAQJRLVd125751; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:27:21 -0600
Received: from dalint02.pst.cso.att.com (dalint02.pst.cso.att.com [135.31.133.160]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAQJRHbk125700 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:27:18 -0600
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (clpi183.sldc.sbc.com [135.41.1.46]) by dalint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Sun, 26 Nov 2017 19:27:08 GMT
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAQJR8pn016366; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:27:08 -0600
Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (mail-green.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAQJQut9015831; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:26:57 -0600
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njmtcas2.research.att.com [135.207.255.47]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 808DCE4897; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 14:25:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njmtcas2.research.att.com ([fe80::d550:ec84:f872:cad9%15]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 14:26:55 -0500
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at
Thread-Topic: Spin bit discussion - where we're at
Thread-Index: AQHTY2ji92hnToyc90Kkv3NgVkreT6MgcbcAgAANHICAAAmFAIAABmyAgAZ8E+A=
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 19:26:54 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF4904F2FD@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <C8DDB9E3-C8F9-49CB-8C6D-E381C00AC02D@trammell.ch>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [73.178.187.36]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-11-26_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1711260271
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/nOvy1icTTNg7SZ64SF_6lv9eHIQ>
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: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 19:27:30 -0000
Hi Brian, Stephen, Lars, Mark and all, one join, one suggestion, and one question below. see [ACM] > -----Original Message----- > From: QUIC [mailto:quic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Trammell > (IETF) > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 5:59 AM > To: Eggert, Lars > Cc: Mark Nottingham; QUIC WG; Stephen Farrell > Subject: Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at > > hi Lars, > > > On 22 Nov 2017, at 11:35, Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On 2017-11-22, at 11:01, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> > wrote: > >> What I thought was being requested and what I do think is reasonable > >> is to document a privacy analysis for any quic protocol bits that are > >> visible to the path. Whether or not some or all of that text ends up > >> in some RFC is another day's work. > > Lars wrote: > > for the Spin Bit specifically, the intent was to permanently capture > the analysis the DT has done, so that when others review the proposed > Spin Bit specification, they can take that as a given and direct any > further analysis to other aspects. It made sense to the chairs that that > specific analysis should become part of the Spin Bit specification. I > think we'd be open to a discussion on whether a broader document > analyzing the QUIC wire image would be a better home for this. The main > point is for the work that the DT has done to be documented. > Brian wrote: > Okay. That's somewhat more reasonable than what I read the ask to be > ("we're going to gate this on the people who care about this doing some > non-trivial amount of work"). Those of us who volunteer (help, please, > anyone? :) ) can certainly pull together what we have in a single I-D > and ask the WG what more it thinks it needs. To me all this seems pretty > clear, but I've been working on this topic for a while. [ACM] Having reached the end of the "Thanksgiving thread", I'm scrolling back a few pages to join the task of permanently capturing the work of the DT in an I-D (at least): There should be lasting value in some of our findings and IMO they are worthy of a persistent reference. > Lars wrote: > > For proposals other than the Spin Bit (I think I have seen individual > contributors at least mention "loss" and "congestion" bits, but without > much detail), we wanted to clarify that we'd like to see an analysis and > discussion of their privacy aspects to roughly the same degree as the DT > has performed for the Spin Bit proposal. > [ACM] I suggest that this might be a different I-D, at least to start. Question: Is there a privacy analysis of present ECN available? (a search yielded many results with Missing: privacy) regards, Al
- Spin bit discussion - where we're at Mark Nottingham
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Stephen Farrell
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Eggert, Lars
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Eggert, Lars
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Mark Nottingham
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Brian Trammell (IETF)
- RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Roni Even
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Brian Trammell (IETF)
- RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Roni Even
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Eliot Lear
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Eggert, Lars
- RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Roni Even
- RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Salvatore Loreto
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Eggert, Lars
- RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Roni Even
- RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Roni Even
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Eggert, Lars
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Eggert, Lars
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Marcus Ihlar
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Brian Trammell (IETF)
- RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Roni Even
- RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at emile.stephan
- R: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Fioccola Giuseppe
- OT (was: Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at) Martin J. Dürst
- RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Jana Iyengar
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Eggert, Lars
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Gorry (erg)
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Roland Zink
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Gorry (erg)
- RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Roland Zink
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Christian Huitema
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Roland Zink
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Christian Huitema
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Ted Hardie
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Roland Zink
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Roberto Peon
- RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Roland Zink
- RE: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Black, David
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at Eggert, Lars