Re: [tcpinc] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpcrypt-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Daniel B Giffin <dbg@scs.stanford.edu> Wed, 15 November 2017 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dbg@scs.stanford.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 453B8127010; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:23:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 LPRa4DOyUyXf; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:23:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from market.scs.stanford.edu (www.scs.stanford.edu [IPv6:2001:470:806d:1::9]) (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 3964E126E3A; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:23:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from market.scs.stanford.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by market.scs.stanford.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id vAF2NPTf015061; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:23:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from dbg@localhost) by market.scs.stanford.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id vAF2NPDw035367; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:23:25 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:23:25 -0800
From: Daniel B Giffin <dbg@scs.stanford.edu>
To: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, tcpinc <tcpinc@ietf.org>, tcpinc-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpcrypt@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171115022325.GA31890@scs.stanford.edu>
References: <151036992713.398.18032326140786383584.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAJU8_nXKpEgvWEZtEPw=wyDmrVteOJaDvmXsDwbUdueMUcaRhA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPaLwD++SPPNwx3Qd9ydOM46h1PwVyiOcw=S-Hif=CO5w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nVfXum1JnU6KYEsTBJiQmXaah5iYfTCmdrerWPNKcdYKw@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBM1UpWCtbv82ZJngSz-k=ZiQfqELAv+BgZ=A8=8r_0AXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nWnG8WuOsGP-UZ5bUtfWohTUaoKm6kjbFdvfVxuUsyLfA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJU8_nWnG8WuOsGP-UZ5bUtfWohTUaoKm6kjbFdvfVxuUsyLfA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/E-uiQwBUSFX0g3WvfnrEiWgK91I>
Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpcrypt-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Working group mailing list for TCP Increased Security \(tcpinc\)" <tcpinc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpinc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpinc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 02:23:27 -0000

Kyle Rose wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:
> >> Interesting. I don't have a strong opinion about this one, but if
> >> there are no (or cheap) tradeoffs, it seems reasonable to use this
> >> construction.
> >
> > The countermeasure that TLS uses seems pretty cheap.
> 
> SGTM. Daniel can chime in here in case he strongly disagrees.

Yes, thanks to Ekr -- we weren't aware of this "multi-user"
problem and the countermeasure.  It looks worthwhile
(trivial performance impact), so we will do it and get an
okay from our local guru on the details.

daniel