IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Thu, 26 April 2018 12:38 UTC

Return-Path: <pmcmanus@mozilla.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 9EA021201F2 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.233
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 8XfCGHMUNlmm for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linode64.ducksong.com (www.ducksong.com [192.155.95.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F574126D74 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-f170.google.com (mail-ot0-f170.google.com [74.125.82.170]) by linode64.ducksong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 304DA3A068 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:37:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-f170.google.com with SMTP id h8-v6so29193901otj.7 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBO1xlJUU12+/txfRIpAuclTvum35cLMXwFIGM1XskhJZZ9sSdC uATfDUwVKzdb4KsjUN2/HD4uN6EK5cGnBVHshqI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/6x0hG7ndOdVoYIBfDmlEZ/ULryz6pO5eyAzsyDKw8ikz049404QVHtFemSsVv9pQ9H4abjgJaLBT+0rlCoZE=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5014:: with SMTP id a20-v6mr20904073oth.205.1524746260679; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.74.138.36 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKcm_gNMTQg-pV8vTXkMCTh48QPZ_ujyFSEKRYf+WurUFytaWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7fd34142-2e14-e383-1f65-bc3ca657576c@huitema.net> <21C36B57-6AE2-40EF-9549-7196D7FA9B45@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <B176FC07-887D-4135-B01E-FE8B4986A5EE@mnot.net> <CAKcm_gOCeocLyrYpOS7Ud332xdz3xHSH0psPN8T6BGRjoL9ptQ@mail.gmail.com> <CY4PR21MB0630FA0EDD343396AD414641B6A40@CY4PR21MB0630.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <CAN1APde13JTzCvKFFvMd183Fka6QGD1kGBjsa9fcoLrYeA2hsA@mail.gmail.com> <CY4PR21MB0630C0FD4FBECBFEC3C863BBB6A40@CY4PR21MB0630.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <047d2ff0-ff8b-64c9-8983-0ecabeb9fea5@huitema.net> <B0F49097-F77A-4831-B68B-4266AA880A86@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <74E2F5C2-66AD-4902-8A4A-E481CC0A015C@fb.com> <75050158-3812-44F1-A01E-D70EED7FDFD6@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <BY2PR15MB0775B4ACF7DB9124E89016F0CDB00@BY2PR15MB0775.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <c8e60ba4-d6be-c4fc-5bac-d569a28fb4e8@huitema.net> <56CE3592-EB1D-40A3-B1D2-965B238FA402@mnot.net> <ae7a63fe-0a32-893f-aa6b-e8d97b8ba87a@huitema.net> <1F436ED13A22A246A59CA374CBC543998B60C6DD@ORSMSX111.amr.corp.intel.com> <fc57394f-9516-04c0-0846-6d159b14bc9e@huitema.net> <SN1PR08MB1854FD2461597D81BEE31ED6DA8F0@SN1PR08MB1854.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAKcm_gMRPXgCoZ958Oj4_Pnkvmc9a7PgNVS0iae0hCW7bLKqng@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR08MB18545D0554DED1F83862EBFBDA8F0@SN1PR08MB1854.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAKcm_gNMTQg-pV8vTXkMCTh48QPZ_ujyFSEKRYf+WurUFytaWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:37:39 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNrdahbwrFq+oorF6j6Or=ubKQf7emhqVb7YMYB6tQaFvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNrdahbwrFq+oorF6j6Or=ubKQf7emhqVb7YMYB6tQaFvw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption
To: Ian Swett <ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, "Deval, Manasi" <manasi.deval@intel.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003d95a4056abfa7ce"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/x8rJV4yEi5wlTn4Zm4HsNkyTpZs>
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: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:38:16 -0000

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:21 PM, Ian Swett <
ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> It has been, and I'm personally supportive of it, because I believe it'll
> be useful for datacenter QUIC use cases.
>

can you layout the datacenter and PNE mismatch? It is just "more work" or
is it an interaction with other hardware offloads?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email