IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpinc] Review of draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpeno-01

dm-list-tcpcrypt@scs.stanford.edu Thu, 27 August 2015 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dm-list-tcpcrypt@scs.stanford.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C1D71B324B for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 q97iOpFVZAnV for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
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 AB2E51B2B42 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from market.scs.stanford.edu (localhost.scs.stanford.edu [127.0.0.1]) by market.scs.stanford.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t7RGHm0T014685; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from dm@localhost) by market.scs.stanford.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id t7RGHmNM006594; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: market.scs.stanford.edu: dm set sender to dm-list-tcpcrypt@scs.stanford.edu using -f
From: dm-list-tcpcrypt@scs.stanford.edu
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, tcpinc <tcpinc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BDF93B3E-9DE0-4FEA-A4A7-6E6A69E4169B@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 07:49:47 -0700
Message-ID: <87h9nkkcqc.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>
References: <CABcZeBNEFVkDi38y3G-C2nQF=dzW2mGDsj5DVK_OKVkPwK=G0g@mail.gmail.com> <878u92oadf.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CABcZeBMfk5C4-LF0fDLKpJktV3hJyzRUNfe0gO8RYDnzcs3yMA@mail.gmail.com> <87zj1inf7n.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CABcZeBMZCjrwpTH+CkZS_p8TYGEFsXwxGn=KfPe28hY5f=2oXw@mail.gmail.com> <87oahuta7j.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CABcZeBPiUxByxUVJ3cb5LaeH5T1LX3iZFetP4cXM3O9avzBkCA@mail.gmail.com> <87si75jo4s.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <BDF93B3E-9DE0-4FEA-A4A7-6E6A69E4169B@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/VBvNmL1n6utDkK5U3f2Ruj0lXDw>
Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Review of draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpeno-01
X-BeenThere: tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for adding encryption to TCP." <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: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:17:49 -0000

Mirja K=C3=BChlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch> writes:

> Hi David,
>
> I believe the point is, if you have already broken the tie via
> out-of-band signal and both endpoints have already decided who will be
> the opener (host A) and responder (host B), why do you still need to
> write this information in the tcp-eno option if this information is
> already known to the host?

Because without the "b" bit, TCP-ENO has no way of knowing that it's
known to the host.  I'm operating under the assumption that we still
want to fall back to a working unencrypted TCP connection in the event
that the endpoints do not properly break the tie.  Is that not the case?

David

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email