Re: [core] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> Wed, 24 May 2017 01:11 UTC

Return-Path: <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE6CF12E872; Tue, 23 May 2017 18:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.com
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 WAFjU8I1WofM; Tue, 23 May 2017 18:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0090.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C84B5129473; Tue, 23 May 2017 18:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=Y3PqGLJtcasfIXQmfuJTStKcGwEUhKjZqRT7YMUER70=; b=YNLz3E2kI3/XxVAxvgcOwnj4d1IExJ+X/GeCh+OPVl4AKtln7aZ66kBZRSlVamFEvGcKbtzKBNXYLHZOFC1A8bfTAnGXWlguwqwd1n5Odo1u5LPyjnNmpjNWvC3LUkrX4UHphcAQgUWaNEK0DaPZZzb47Lvv5GEc25p+29xCsGk=
Received: from BY2PR21MB0084.namprd21.prod.outlook.com (10.162.78.141) by BY2PR21MB0020.namprd21.prod.outlook.com (10.162.77.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1143.0; Wed, 24 May 2017 01:11:44 +0000
Received: from BY2PR21MB0084.namprd21.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.78.141]) by BY2PR21MB0084.namprd21.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.78.141]) with mapi id 15.01.1143.000; Wed, 24 May 2017 01:11:43 +0000
From: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
CC: "core-chairs@ietf.org" <core-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [core] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHSyVSAMpIwzIhBiUGz2Gs5B08R+qHtXEWAgBVTRFA=
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 01:11:43 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR21MB0084BB12DF9C5C684857AD9F83FE0@BY2PR21MB0084.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <149411155754.23175.15150224037348429928.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A1046D25-8D1A-4267-9705-16624E727D35@tzi.org> <28837957-421a-eeff-8304-cfafb80ca234@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <28837957-421a-eeff-8304-cfafb80ca234@gmx.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmx.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmx.net; dmarc=none action=none header.from=microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [174.61.159.182]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR21MB0020; 7:beYPhwz32i4wDnM+s+k5J28Zmw+wKyI/ASBGkIIu8JVDrO72pjYqiKmyUmrSCIc4+S3gjKQHhbRY/F6NMXuoJayjdT77zpJ3VT6RqpccKRD2zpe3RO149Y3UWEr3442m+TFOR2StpeoeV2hxqmeVpdE/KQQ8PB1rOq/QQ3X3zcAkPkk68TvW4LJg1O1Ahq1yBkBQK1VdTekazoJf9Y/ipsqucxsP9Fmgrh9vTPj7K2Aoc06EtM20Ck5D1176tBVJQnXwWdSzG3FDaebzxadSGOD0ymmHSkifacvBSNY+ifgUn+cH3nv4g1kZgtfSHCF+lZdkGEl7x0ktQNvj3qiaHu5VA2pKZIsjMkcH1MPKzpg=
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BY2PR21MB0020:
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: def5aac5-78a7-4f31-194d-08d4a241d798
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(48565401081)(201703131423075)(201703031133081); SRVR:BY2PR21MB0020;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY2PR21MB0020C56A17D246B68ECBD75683FE0@BY2PR21MB0020.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(166708455590820);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700054)(100105000095)(100000701053)(100105300095)(100000702053)(100105100095)(61425038)(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(100000703053)(100105400095)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(20161123558100)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123555025)(6072148)(100000704053)(100105200095)(100000705053)(100105500095); SRVR:BY2PR21MB0020; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800053)(100110000095)(100000801053)(100110300095)(100000802053)(100110100095)(100000803053)(100110400095)(100000804053)(100110200095)(100000805045)(100110500095); SRVR:BY2PR21MB0020;
x-forefront-prvs: 031763BCAF
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39860400002)(39410400002)(39450400003)(39400400002)(39840400002)(39850400002)(24454002)(377454003)(8936002)(5005710100001)(10090500001)(53936002)(66066001)(25786009)(9686003)(55016002)(53546009)(6436002)(54906002)(6506006)(6306002)(77096006)(229853002)(99286003)(6246003)(8676002)(81166006)(38730400002)(2950100002)(189998001)(4326008)(74316002)(3660700001)(7696004)(3846002)(102836003)(5660300001)(33656002)(6116002)(10290500003)(72206003)(478600001)(230783001)(2906002)(966005)(122556002)(2900100001)(76176999)(54356999)(305945005)(3280700002)(86362001)(7736002)(50986999); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR21MB0020; H:BY2PR21MB0084.namprd21.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 May 2017 01:11:43.7153 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR21MB0020
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/lMJNYruX1nc4ERwFwVc73cGvqgc>
Subject: Re: [core] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 01:11:49 -0000

On 05/10/2017 03:24 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
[original response @ https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg08739.html]

>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>>
>> After reading Mark Nottingham's review, I'm persuaded we should at 
>> least discuss the relationship of this work to the parallel work in HTTP.
>> 
<snip>

> I also do not see a competition between CoAP and HTTP/2. What this initially tried to do is to describe how some
> companies (ARM, Microsoft, Zebra) have been deploying CoAP in enterprise networks that block UDP traffic.

Samsung too. And perhaps one of our OCF+IETF participants could speak to the current OCF and/or IoTivity status. See also this presentation - https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2016-t2trg-03/slides/slides-interim-2016-t2trg-03-sessa-iotivity-status-and-future-direction-00.pdf

> Why it takes 2 years to standardize such basic features is a mystery to me.
> In the long run, the story for IoT devices may be QUIC & HTTP/2 but today HTTP/2 on IoT devices is essentially non-existent.

Encouraged by Dave Thaler, there was a candid discussion of rationale in https://github.com/core-wg/coap-tcp-tls/issues/50. As Hannes wrote in the issue:

    I can give you the motivation why we are interested in CoAP over TLS /TCP. We have an existing implementation of LWM2M,
    which uses CoAP. We spent a lot of time getting that implementation rock-solid. Some enterprise deployments, which happen
    to have interesting firewall policies, do not allow us to use UDP. Hence, we were interested to add a TCP-based transport to CoAP.     
    Making this enhancement turns out to be reasonably simple.

    As Carsten explained, CoAP has found its way into various SDOs and that's what people now implement. CoAP is sort-of understood
    and there are lots of implementations available. Switching to something else takes time and resources. There are also much fewer 
    implementations of HTTP/2 for embedded devices available.  Maybe in a few years we will be using HTTP/2 instead of CoAP over 
    TCP/TLS but today we just want to get our existing deployments document and standardized. I am sure that people will take a closer look 
    at the different options in more detail in the future.

While the DISCUSS is perfectly reasonable (I raised similar questions about IETF guidance in the github issue above), it feels inopportune that this specific concern is being expressed so late in the process rather than during proposed adoption of the working draft especially since both WGs are in the same Area. 

Dave Thaler's issue was prompted by Gabriel Montenegro's HTTPbis presentation at IETF 96 which explored protocol reuse / HTTP/2 availability - https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-httpbis-3.pdf.  This was a second natural opportunity for early questions to be raised between the HTTPbis and CoRE chairs?

...Brian