Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9490 <draft-iab-m-ten-workshop-02> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!--[rfced] Please review the guidance found at 
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/iab-format.txt> and let us know 
if any changes are needed.
-->


2) <!--[rfced] This document had the consensus attribute set to true, but also
says the following. Shall the consensus attribute be set to false?

Original:
   The views and positions documented in this report are
   those of the expressed during the workshop by participants and do not
   necessarily reflect IAB views and positions.
and
   Thus, the content of this
   report follows the flow and dialog of the workshop but does not
   attempt to capture a consensus.
-->


3) <!--[rfced] Section 2.2.1. Please let us know how we can clarify the following
sentence. Is the collaboration between the intermediary services or the
support they provide?

Original:
   Instead of encrypted communication between only two ends and passive
   observation by all on-path elements, intermediate relays could be
   trusted parties with limited information for the purposes of
   collaboration between in-network intermediary services' support.
-->


4) <!--[rfced] Section 2.2.3. The following sentence appears to be missing one 
or more words between "local transmission" and "end-to-end transmission". 
Please let us know how to update this:

Original:
   E.g. side car information can contain additional
   acknowledgements to enable in-network local retransmission faster
   end-to-end retransmission by reducing the signaling round trip time.
-->


5) <!--[rfced] Section 2.3.1. Please help us make the following sentence
clearer. Does "categorized into an envelope" mean "comprises"?

Original:
   The proposed contract solution is to define a collection of
   acceptable behaviors categorized into an envelope of different states
   that might include IP addresses, domain names, and indicators of
   compromise.  

Perhaps:
   The proposed contract solution is to define a collection of
   acceptable behaviors that comprises different states
   that might include IP addresses, domain names, and indicators of
   compromise. 
-->


6) <!--[rfced] Section 2.3.3. Is there a phrase missing in this sentence? Is the
compromise between the "tension" and something else? Or is the compromise
between services that offer privacy and services that offer protection?

Original:
   These collaborative solutions may be
   the best compromise between the tension of privacy vs protection
   based services [PAULY]. 

Perhaps:
   These collaborative solutions may be the
   best compromise on services that balance privacy and protection [PAULY].
-->


7) <!--[rfced] Section 3. In the following sentence, it is not clear what kind 
of technologies the operators are being asked to allow into their
environments. In addition, is the phrase "environment requirements"
correct? Please let us know how to clarify this sentence.

Original:
   *  There is an unanswered question of whether or not network
      operators be willing to participate and allow technologies into
      their environment requirements in exchange for technologies that
      prove their clients are being good net-citizens.
-->


8) <!--[rfced] We found alternate sources for both the [GRUBBS] and [KUEHLEWIND]
references. Would you like to update these references?

[GRUBBS] https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity22/presentation/grubbs
[KUEHLEWIND] https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2022/6/relays-and-online-user-privacy

Original:
   [GRUBBS]   Grubbs, P., Arun, A., Zhang, Y., Bonneau, J., and M.
              Walfish, "Zero-Knowledge Middleboxes", August 2022,
              <https://github.com/intarchboard/workshop-m-
              ten/blob/main/papers/Grubbs-Zero-
              Knowledge%20Middleboxes.pdf>.

   [KUEHLEWIND]
              Kühlewind, M., Westerlund, M., Sarker, Z., and M. Ihlar,
              "Relying on Relays", August 2022,
              <https://github.com/intarchboard/workshop-m-
              ten/blob/main/papers/Kuehlewind-Relying-on-Relays.pdf>.
-->


9) <!--[rfced] The [KNODEL] reference is an introduction to the pearg
Internet-Draft [I-D.irtf-pearg-safe-internet-measurement].

Original:
   [I-D.irtf-pearg-safe-internet-measurement]
              Learmonth, I. R., Grover, G., and M. Knodel, "Guidelines
              for Performing Safe Measurement on the Internet", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-pearg-safe-internet-
              measurement-08, 10 July 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-pearg-
              safe-internet-measurement-08>.

   [KNODEL]   Knodel, M., "Guidelines for Performing Safe Measurement on
              the Internet", August 2022,
              <https://github.com/intarchboard/workshop-m-
              ten/blob/main/papers/Knodel-Guidelines-for-Performing-
              Safe-Measurement-on-the-Internet.pdf>.

Appendix A lists the following:

   Iain R.  Learmonth, Gurshabad Grover, Mallory Knodel. “Guidelines for
   Performing Safe Measurement on the Internet.” (Additional rationale)
   [KNODEL]

Perhaps [KNODEL] should be listed in the Informative References as the following:

   [KNODEL]   Knodel, M., "Additional rationale for 'Guidelines for 
              Performing Safe Measurement on the Internet'", August 2022,
              <https://github.com/intarchboard/workshop-m-
              ten/blob/main/papers/Knodel-Guidelines-for-Performing-
              Safe-Measurement-on-the-Internet.pdf>.

And Appendix A be updated to show the following:

   Iain R. Learmonth, Gurshabad Grover, Mallory Knodel. “Guidelines for
   Performing Safe Measurement on the Internet.” [LEARMONTH]

   Mallory Knodel. "Additional rationale for 'Guidelines for 
   Performing Safe Measurement on the Internet'" [KNODEL]
-->


10) <!--[rfced] On the [KUEHLEWIND] paper
(https://github.com/intarchboard/workshop-m-ten/blob/main/papers/Kuehlewind-Relying-on-Relays.pdf),
it is unclear to us whether "ANM" is part of Zaheduzzaman Sarker's name
or is an honorific. This may impact the initial used in the Informative
References section (currently Z.) and the name provided in Appendix A.3
(Currently Zaheduzzaman Sarker).
-->


11) <!--[rfced] The original URL provided for [DITTO] does not work:

   [DITTO]    Meier, R., Lenders, V., and L. Vanbever, "Ditto - WAN
              Traffic Obfuscation at Line Rate", April 2022,
              <https://nsg.ee.ethz.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/
              publications/ditto_final_ndss22.pdf>.

We have found the following: 
A landing page for the paper: https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss-paper/auto-draft-195/
And also a DOI URL, which displays the PDF directly: https://doi.org/10.14722/ndss.2022.24056

Perhaps:
   [DITTO]    Meier, R., Lenders, V., and L. Vanbever, "Ditto: WAN
              Traffic Obfuscation at Line Rate", Network and Distributed
              Systems Security (NDSS) Symposium, April 2022,
              <https://doi.org/10.14722/ndss.2022.24056>.
-->


12) <!--[rfced] Appendix A.2. The following paper does not have a reference. 
Would you like to add one?

   Wes Hardaker. "Network Flow Management by Probability." 
-->


13) <!--[rfced] Appendix B. 
a) The list of participants includes a duplication: "Michael Ackermann" and
"Mike Ackermann". Which should be used?
b) While we understand that some participants may wish to provide only partial
names, is "Qiufang" actually "Qiufang Ma"?

Please review the participant list and let us know if any updates are needed.
-->


14) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have removed the Acknowledgments section because it was
empty. Please let us know if any further updates are necessary.
-->


15) <!--[rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide 
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know 
if any changes are needed.

Please consider whether "tradition" should be updated for clarity.  While the NIST website
<https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1>
indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
"Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/jm/ar


On Oct 5, 2023, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/10/05

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
  follows:

  <!-- [rfced] ... -->

  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
  change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
  - contact information
  - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
  <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

  *  your coauthors

  *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

  *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
     IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
     responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

  *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
     list:

    *  More info:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

    *  The archive itself:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

    *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
       of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
       If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
       have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
       [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
       its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9490.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9490.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9490.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9490.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9490-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9490-rfcdiff.html (side by side)


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9490

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9490 (draft-iab-m-ten-workshop-02)

Title            : Report from the IAB Workshop on Management Techniques in Encrypted Networks (M-TEN)
Author(s)        : M. Knodel, W. Hardaker, T. Pauly