IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org> Tue, 25 August 2015 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <krose@krose.org>
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 9B3101B3305 for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.379
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 L8ZyHjHpx2uM for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (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 91B921B32FB for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iodv127 with SMTP id v127so187398106iod.3 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=krose.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dsu1kWtOe9Hm3L7JVhzm/Ol8zMIlk6H0IXM6A1By4oc=; b=ab/T3K4si1hG0CpnOq64P9t8Q+dbZwN8VVNidtJzZYBZaRwMHoLFrJKdShaEGFn+Sb tuG9obGYdGAWZ9JbrYxY73x1ED1oa31nA02K9drsegcHS7WJ0atmzV/nk1E5E0/Izua+ iYqXQ9duLIHCVELE4Uoh2J7LmPg+L41cOWb4w=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dsu1kWtOe9Hm3L7JVhzm/Ol8zMIlk6H0IXM6A1By4oc=; b=O8hIy7swU3dgiktx3lYA806qWxjHlN+Mr/5k8SjnWe7TbQHsqqrwuONuwq4/dADE8M IIJt6BHaJhdfWTH96ObV2B4eE46r+FSwgTwSZJDyo0akNCORxxkEUcTnTk0BfaOaGs5+ DT5q/x7fAY10g5cYyGeqRTMuXBVacIuVqpsL9pt47xqlRSjp5Ov0OSFQI4ot6WWXvi74 aYNNJ5PKl+F9OI+tdCjN6qpvwZd/qO8EJYzSVNxawt1mcJCN3aqmkVKbXHBRj7bhIqBa w0idkgm0o6+q/s7BEEJi/Lcg3tJoeocSOBpWY8nPmVP3d5KhWrgJiPNyCqP++dE1NHdK HVyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlMCn7JI8bEZXeVngCmSofR45zXsX5MrPplKcXdqFggOHJ8XI3I+Lxa0DDbX/2KqueVQnHr
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.13.3 with SMTP id 3mr22245903ion.70.1440511861009; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.31.197 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [72.246.0.14]
In-Reply-To: <55DC764F.4000104@bbn.com>
References: <CABcZeBNEFVkDi38y3G-C2nQF=dzW2mGDsj5DVK_OKVkPwK=G0g@mail.gmail.com> <878u92oadf.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CACsn0ckQskjLqo0=YfJrmBEsyCaq0jpcSzGUwKhRo0BzzQ=wDA@mail.gmail.com> <871teuo7nu.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CACsn0ckn-QdoXmTgjW8gYQyVqZ0x9JHEYvZO5VHQkG9nKA3-Ew@mail.gmail.com> <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> <55DB79BC.8040309@bbn.com> <CACsn0ckLiC-RCjFNjLx01kCV2pEW58_NqJyt2bfXoAgZL994cw@mail.gmail.com> <55DC764F.4000104@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:11:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJU8_nW2tkQ9kLL=oyfjiry+8zWO1YR=hP4xM8L6uujWT8AzcA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/hZUoF59GUm4QDOQAeOoHMN1bYsM>
Cc: 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: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:11:15 -0000

> into the reality of comparing ciphersuites justifies exposing all
> possible ciphersuites, and permitting specifying arbitrary preferences
> among them?
>
> The preferences of others are "arbitrary" but yours are not?

Touché.

I don't hear a lot of opposition to maintaining agility in ciphersuite
preference. I am personally in favor of keeping some mechanism
(whether this one or a different one) in place for that purpose,
because it provides much more flexibility than it requires complexity.

Kyle

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email