Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Tweak traffic analysis text (#3411)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 06:42:32 -0800

This text was pretty good and more or less covered the problem already,
but I think that this might be slightly better.

@MikeBishop, if you don&#39;t like this, close this AND #2905.

Closes #2905.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3411

-- Commit Summary --

  * Tweak traffic analysis text

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-http.md (6)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3411.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3411.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3411

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 07:02:40 -0800

LPardue approved this pull request.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3411#pullrequestreview-353045056

---

From: ekr <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 07:54:14 -0800

ekr commented on this pull request.

> @@ -1527,8 +1527,10 @@ Where HTTP/2 employs PADDING frames and Padding fields in other frames to make a
 connection more resistant to traffic analysis, HTTP/3 can either rely on
 transport-layer padding or employ the reserved frame and stream types discussed
 in {{frame-reserved}} and {{stream-grease}}.  These methods of padding produce
-different results in terms of the granularity of padding, the effect of packet
-loss and recovery, and how an implementation might control padding.
+different results in terms of the granularity of padding, how padding is
+arranged in relation to the information that is being protected, whether
+padding is applied in the case of packet loss, and how an implementation might
+control padding.

How about a citation to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wood-pearg-website-fingerprinting/

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3411#pullrequestreview-353089559

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 07:59:01 -0800

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

That seems like a different problem.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3411#discussion_r374760612

---

From: ekr <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 03:42:15 -0800

PR sent.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3411#discussion_r375207515

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:19:22 -0800

MikeBishop approved this pull request.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3411#pullrequestreview-357068044

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:19:44 -0800

Merged #3411 into master.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3411#event-3028631580