IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Udp35] Snowden and SPUD

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 20 July 2015 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: udp35@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: udp35@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070D31B2CA6 for <udp35@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 WAXZ-2IffSd1 for <udp35@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 716C91B2CB6 for <udp35@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1894; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1437412908; x=1438622508; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=h8ypNY6fP7lnZz5KkoTApBLVyKIHRlf61rR6xGUM02M=; b=kLjkYQTIu6hbQLtCvSGTg0c+M/PlnkvfXtUlq+XJBK5vQ/dy6PnNn11t Jq3aMZ+9WXDJiNFclHiu9qvn7lxPQOUC4PTmRKYsbO45Lwa6QImAXSiTU iS/Hmi+I8JB2oiy5xNIOGsXVSYe1YMROGVvNxg382mlaax0qPzYAuOWxs c=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DTBADhLK1V/xbLJq1ch3PAPwKBewEBAQEBAYELhCQBAQQjTwcQCw4KCSECAg8CRgYNCAEBiCqyQJYAAQEBAQEBAQECAQEBAQEBAQEai0yFBgeCaIFDAQSUUoIzgVSIGoFDhwiMW4NhJmODGzyCfAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,509,1432598400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="569989029"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jul 2015 17:21:46 +0000
Received: from [10.61.170.123] ([10.61.170.123]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6KHLkRK027628; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:21:46 GMT
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
References: <DD4CE423-ABFD-41CA-8AA8-79DE2779A47B@ifi.uio.no> <CAGD1bZbwkaYmH7WR_jb-wgkXfM7EjyExAy=P11V3CR_u40KKFQ@mail.gmail.com> <AED99648-40DE-4857-9F67-861C52252DF7@ifi.uio.no> <55AD2A9C.2070106@cisco.com> <4D44D0D7-08F0-4601-922C-D38C15E3263B@ifi.uio.no>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <55AD2E28.40506@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:21:44 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4D44D0D7-08F0-4601-922C-D38C15E3263B@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fqxOLPvlngtv9dg73goomhTBSmO9NwCr5"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/udp35/bKzGt3DC6Di9Gir4ET9kZjdmka4>
Cc: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>, "udp35@ietf.org" <udp35@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Udp35] Snowden and SPUD
X-BeenThere: udp35@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Life beyond UDP <udp35.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/udp35>, <mailto:udp35-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/udp35/>
List-Post: <mailto:udp35@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:udp35-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/udp35>, <mailto:udp35-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:21:50 -0000


On 7/20/15 7:16 PM, Michael Welzl wrote:
> oh and btw: your syn / synack assumes middleboxes trust end systems' tcps to act right - which is a point i made. will they immediately trust spud? why should they - just cause it's easy?  that's a weird reason to trust someone.

"Immediately" is a word I might have some difficulty with, but if the
semantics are such that there's at least a high likelihood that the host
will do the right thing, that makes getting UDP through firewalls
easier, and that's got to be worth something to both app developers and
their users (the people who have a relationship with the people who
manage the firewalls).

And so this brings me back to your earlier note: nobody wants to
duplicate ALL of TCP.  It's there.  Twice if you count SCTP ;-)  But
others ARE using UDP and might find their applications more deployable
if they layer them atop SPUD (which could yet come for free with DTLS).

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email