Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-trammell-wire-image-04> (The Wire Image of a Network Protocol)

["Brian Trammell (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

> On 15 Sep 2018, at 00:55, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Sure. But isn't it the move to encrypt more that's motivating this and
>> other drafts? If so, then I think ack'ing that there are valid and
>> pressing motivations for that move is needed. If there are other
>> motivations, those aren't clear to me at least and therefore probably
>> also deserve a mention.
>> We've seen (with Kathleen and Al's draft),
>> that some people (not the authors here) do quote drafts like this when
>> arguing against more confidentiality, so I think this draft, and
>> similar ones, really ought say that we do need more use of
>> confidentiality, and not just assume that that's accepted by all
>> readers. Yes, that only needs to be a sentence or two and some
>> reference, but I do think it needs to be there.
> 
> extremely much so, tyvm.  to me, this is *the* critical issue here.

Ok. The motivation for this draft is indeed he increasing deployment and coverage of encryption down the stack, which we take as a given. A few sentences to make this context clear could be useful.

> the other issues we can ietf to death, like trains to maastricht or
> visas to bangkok.  but making clear that strong encryption is here to
> stay and that is a good thing is principle.

The whole point of this line of work is to define a solution space for the (technical) problems that arise when “strong encryption is here to stay”, and follows from its statement that weaning various communities off an addiction to clear text is an important part of moving the Internet to a default-confidential stance (see https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2014-2/iab-statement-on-internet-confidentiality/). 

Cheers,

Brian