IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sat, 15 September 2018 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A5A130DC4; Sat, 15 Sep 2018 09:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 FMWncg5Y-WJS; Sat, 15 Sep 2018 09:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2871128CB7; Sat, 15 Sep 2018 09:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1g1Dqk-0004gD-00; Sat, 15 Sep 2018 16:55:14 +0000
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 09:55:13 -0700
Message-ID: <m2r2hur98u.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, IAB <iab@iab.org>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org, IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-trammell-wire-image-04> (The Wire Image of a Network Protocol)
In-Reply-To: <3836209E-60C5-4F55-A5AB-8D9EB6E4B935@trammell.ch>
References: <153619287953.19753.5995314701986579146.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8b52dce5-1ee4-b40b-e1ba-e7c9b241dd82@cs.tcd.ie> <6080E931-DEB6-48C8-BEB1-96A69112F67A@trammell.ch> <255e0d12-fbce-1448-90db-daadc4e39c3f@cs.tcd.ie> <m236ubsn8p.wl-randy@psg.com> <3836209E-60C5-4F55-A5AB-8D9EB6E4B935@trammell.ch>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/25.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OUY288slHchil1nCoQY8g_vn9cY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 16:55:53 -0000

> 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.

i kind of liked just saying that strong encryption is becoming
ubiquitous, is here to stay, and the ietf thinks that is a good thing.
this has consequences for applications and middleboxes that have grown
used to being able to see the traffic in cleartext.

> 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”

for some of the consequences, there is no "solution."  this may not be a
bug.

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email