IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Mon, 24 August 2015 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
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 359BC1A0264 for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 eLjixUjvcVAT for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x232.google.com (mail-wi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]) (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 BCE451A040C for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by widdq5 with SMTP id dq5so57457434wid.1 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rCBoDMl8zWz/gwn2WplgKOe7BvkPjbDC7sfSwuBKAa0=; b=A+GpyzLnFj3RM9kwiMCz5aAOyLTqxH/CsEaMs1WL+sZTOSC/DYCrsQ408RmNVFAsBG hEYBpWP7yzlTcqhDOAUyZLggaEzSBtBAOiMLXmvDtswzOdfNsn/1TveBxyTkYyhDtFet WA0RP/qnZ8tWTfQHK6cWa7lbeMRWFGghq//Xoubll2rZtaSLX2b9Zekpu2H3Y5lR9Kk1 acju/YpnnEsm1jEbdc44OMbVVosZSf9c3fXTb9R94rnI6XTgTRrBI8xKK+AVQ+OvkZx0 QuT6DqboC9GFQBL3Q+Fi0SMCTlx+74Vt47NaqZC1t7us1Gd5PfDjKptuI9dAO/5V6is7 Njxg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.209.167 with SMTP id mn7mr41202398wjc.64.1440438439496; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.132.11 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BD77DB05-9252-41DE-9D05-D6F01FFD55A6@gmail.com>
References: <87wpwmnenv.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CACsn0cnq9cZdkn=yp8-GJfXDGMP8r1sib3qrQQEQYhF25kYZPg@mail.gmail.com> <87twrpokpz.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CACsn0ck2PfKQ8pkDLiSmuLH+81s2GzsBnKYH7e=5ga5nSJvo1Q@mail.gmail.com> <87io85ofkl.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CACsn0cmna07KzCZme7pxRgCcAOJLXzup3KPJ+bRimL=n3mpPXg@mail.gmail.com> <87vbc5l8si.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CACsn0c=cLj2F6JyFX848D1TuDt0A=kT7UMm8ZPRRu-X6ow4oTQ@mail.gmail.com> <87d1ycizeo.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CACsn0c=SRaUR9okBAXaKBZG0wZ12h7aarxPFf7LYCtcQfG-nJg@mail.gmail.com> <20150824142948.GA23716@LK-Perkele-VII> <CACsn0c=h8sqXqQG5NXp9sc5TPhddPMui7Un1DYW8O4uxgwixHw@mail.gmail.com> <BD77DB05-9252-41DE-9D05-D6F01FFD55A6@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:47:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CACsn0cndD-RvxsEGVoksCcGPeP9nq3p1DfcnB1qjZpiPdMnO9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/gR2TvVVQ6tQEWdgCypWWemkTrpA>
Cc: tcpinc <tcpinc@ietf.org>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
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: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:47:22 -0000

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 24, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Ilari Liusvaara
>> <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 07:22:23AM -0700, Watson Ladd wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:33 AM, David Mazieres
>>>>
>>>> This is a misreading: I'm proposing that at any time there is only one
>>>> suite that everyone uses, and versioning is just for transitions.
>>>
>>> This becomes highly problematic when one needs to:
>>> - Support multiple security levels.
>>> - There isn't one technically (meaning, ignore legal constraints)
>>>  superrior algorithm.
>>
>> In case of point 2, why is there a need to use multiple algorithms?
>
> Because I believe algorithm A is superior, you believe algorithm B is superior, but neither of us thinks the other algorithm is so bad that we might as well use cleartext.
>
> So both of our implementations (or configurations) support both algorithms, but whichever one gets to choose chooses according to our preference.
>
> AES-GCM vs ChaCha20/Poly1305. Which is superior?

Would you cry if you had to pick one? Clearly not. So why worry about
making it possible to do this?

>
> Yoav
>



-- 
"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains".
--Rousseau.

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email