IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Thu, 27 August 2015 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
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 E67FD1ACF55 for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 07:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 08E-5Oir5clh for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 07:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C0B71AD069 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 07:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21FF3D9316; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:59:43 +0200 (MEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gPaX5nA-RsXE; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:59:42 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from [82.130.103.143] (nb-10510.ethz.ch [82.130.103.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mirjak) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8717D9307; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:59:42 +0200 (MEST)
Message-ID: <55DF25DC.2040001@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:59:40 +0200
From: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Mazieres expires 2015-11-25 PST <mazieres-mi4k5cjrzag3vb3sskqhuij4ma@temporary-address.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> <87h9nkkcqc.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <87h9nkkcqc.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/_-Rk6kvkO2h1d7O4-wHDvAep-s0>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, tcpinc <tcpinc@ietf.org>
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 14:59:49 -0000

Don't you need anyway an internal interface to say that tcp-eno has to set the 
"b" bit?

That's simply saying to tcp-eno that this side will be the host A. Isn't this 
sufficient? Or do I miss something?

Mirja


On 27.08.2015 16:49, David Mazieres expires 2015-11-25 PST wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind <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