Potential conflict between draft-ietf-quic-transport and RFC 7983

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Wed, 17 May 2017 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@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 9D5F61201FA for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 May 2017 14:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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_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=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 lplRkKpSQd0X for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 May 2017 14:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x233.google.com (mail-vk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::233]) (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 F3FE31200F3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 May 2017 14:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id h16so14078927vkd.2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 May 2017 14:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=44arKqlKHBONGJYHh3XsGtBdh6s4gaVdLKc/eTS7gSY=; b=C6Lr2NCQRG+x114lVp5+O+YmT6YSSUaLoBtt66T01GolOY905buZjl0BbyLkYCgKlH 3dPXjnii/2Dp5ublCouXbeuJb+hTHE9N+CGk5Oz8HOTjhP1hAZky4NZtw6NUMp6//H93 LHG1wvhOMoZaj5MxjrG7IhRLia0eD4AZRiIvFyHyeWu2mN7gRRu8lWS6VcpMU+fAmzwc Zpxvv83spPHOj+XWl/H9J9skBJHKO9Nx0CJTPHDBbIjtzwMTIiKjxhntC90/ymvwoXko aM9foJfHhFmbbruUTunk8oQqDDeioKeR/mwucQSH1hOIwViTHOMRVPmTgiLwyT8dR5iA UEog==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=44arKqlKHBONGJYHh3XsGtBdh6s4gaVdLKc/eTS7gSY=; b=TQvKGF38lB/Pi/sWrewLdmp3eOzH994QaEwbwKiSgpYO6B899iRmgRvZAopDBErvLf dR/cU/Pg8i76u+IdwiV3sPNxlQrAR020bxYS0sckrxROENx/S7+zGBF33Q5UojwXf1Yi RbSt7iwD8uOM+plLY4hG6kVVXrh9lQOFWer7y/e+U+u7CdT0kl1Eec33IP3TTH+mViX5 BDCkiJxN6155mEVxo2W96skGx0yM2TfHK+niv8h9ggDwrw+yCyU+kmt3jlg0SwADw7Tq FB1Q1xYk+EpW5TqAZsPQ8FK1d0XlSVtxEISBEjyKk9yHASOBdE/qi7tOi8yh+G1qBYUa K+pA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBV46N0CaTT7gRCkTv8/7hYI8faqIKuJz/WSJUSa9K7T4zOKF1h jy6enCCzka8oAbmq1v8KV2bfyuwDmQ==
X-Received: by 10.31.115.194 with SMTP id o185mr504920vkc.45.1495057027001; Wed, 17 May 2017 14:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.49.18 with HTTP; Wed, 17 May 2017 14:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 14:36:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dtLDB+hq2u9BA4JYBOt+nRv0G3P+00c7wfPyz5+ftEiRA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Potential conflict between draft-ietf-quic-transport and RFC 7983
To: quic@ietf.org
Cc: "pthatcher@google.com" <pthatcher@google.com>, marc@petit-huguenin.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c14970c037594054fbf17dd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/u4zaqG-wBvYtuL7Hh6hkylGFLTY>
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, 17 May 2017 21:37:10 -0000

There appears to be a potential conflict between draft-ietf-quic-transport
and RFC 7983. Looking at draft-ietf-quic-transport, both the short and the
long headers appear to conflict with the de-multiplexing scheme defined in
RFC 7983, which is based on the value of the first byte of multi-plexed
protocols:

   The process for demultiplexing a packet is as follows.  The receiver
   looks at the first byte of the packet.  If the value of this byte is
   in between 0 and 3 (inclusive), then the packet is STUN.  If the
   value is between 16 and 19 (inclusive), then the packet is ZRTP.  If
   the value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), then the packet is DTLS.
   If the value is between 64 and 79 (inclusive), then the packet is
   TURN Channel.  If the value is in between 128 and 191 (inclusive),
   then the packet is RTP (or RTCP, if both RTCP and RTP are being
   multiplexed over the same destination port).  If the value does not
   match any known range, then the packet MUST be dropped and an alert
   MAY be logged.  This process is summarized in Figure 3.

                    +----------------+
                    |        [0..3] -+--> forward to STUN
                    |                |
                    |      [16..19] -+--> forward to ZRTP
                    |                |
        packet -->  |      [20..63] -+--> forward to DTLS
                    |                |
                    |      [64..79] -+--> forward to TURN Channel
                    |                |
                    |    [128..191] -+--> forward to RTP/RTCP
                    +----------------+

     Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm.