Re: [tsvwg] DTLS 1.3 over SCTP

Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Fri, 14 July 2023 09:42 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDD3C15C513 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2023 02:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id isV65O01GPCZ for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2023 02:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drew.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 710FDC15C52D for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2023 02:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8109:1140:c3d:85a6:7e27:ddf8:905b]) (Authenticated sender: lurchi) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 77D8776B66C19; Fri, 14 Jul 2023 11:42:24 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.600.7\))
From: Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <PA4PR07MB7568AAF7162A90DC79945DAB8734A@PA4PR07MB7568.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 11:42:24 +0200
Cc: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FFC46CD7-5416-4526-8C2C-0BFD55E62FD7@lurchi.franken.de>
References: <0C990143-D450-4288-9390-E06D3469FF1D@lurchi.franken.de> <PA4PR07MB7568B70C363F70CA9CF005648734A@PA4PR07MB7568.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <B35A9C2C-9360-4248-B0FA-552ADC1F5D05@lurchi.franken.de> <PA4PR07MB7568AAF7162A90DC79945DAB8734A@PA4PR07MB7568.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: Claudio Porfiri <claudio.porfiri=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.600.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/9JQ1kw3qOPv77P0qQ7jW75KQLg0>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] DTLS 1.3 over SCTP
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 09:42:29 -0000

> On 14. Jul 2023, at 11:24, Claudio Porfiri <claudio.porfiri=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Michael,
> As an example, S1-AP protocol that exploits SCTP and is described in TS 36.413 (the protocol) and TS 36.412 (the transport) can send a single message that contains all the features from a User Equipment and the total maximum size of this signal may grow up to 142k.
I see.
> S1-AP is not the most demanding though, there are signals in Xn protocol specified in TS 48.423 that can grow up to more than 500k
500KB in a single message. What message rates are expected? What is the expected bandwidth of links carrying this
traffic.

I assume that sending/receiving the messages are atomic operations from an application point of view. Is that correct?

Best regards
Michael
> 
> BR,
> Claudio.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> 
> Sent: Friday, 14 July 2023 11:14
> To: Claudio Porfiri <claudio.porfiri@ericsson.com>
> Cc: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] DTLS 1.3 over SCTP
> 
>> On 14. Jul 2023, at 08:04, Claudio Porfiri <claudio.porfiri=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Michael,
>> I am reading this new draft but I have a quick comment at once.
>> The requirements from 3GPP towards SCTP are far beyond the limit of 64k, for instance S1-AP needs up to 142k.
> Hi Claudio,
> 
> could you provide some insight what kind of signalling message needs up to 142KB?
> Just wondering what kind of information needs 142 KB.
>> This new draft improves the situation but doesn't solve it.
> The focus is not limited to 3GPP. We are trying to improve the situation
> for RFC 6083 with minimizing the changes.
> 
> Best regards
> Michael
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Claudio
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael Tuexen
>> Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2023 16:35
>> To: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [tsvwg] DTLS 1.3 over SCTP
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Hannes Tschofenig and myself have submitted an ID for using DTLS 1.3 over SCTP:
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tuexen-tsvwg-rfc6083-bis-02.html
>> 
>> This is an alternative to
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis-06.html
>> 
>> Our document is based on RFC 6083. The major differences are:
>> * Use DTLS 1.3 instead of DTLS 1.0
>> * Use key updates instead of renegotiation. This limits the number of
>> rekeyings to 2^64, but that should not limit in real world scenarios.
>> * Bump the maximum user message size to 64KB by using RFC 8449.
>> 
>> Any comments welcome.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Michael