Re: [Int-area] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020
Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org> Wed, 01 July 2020 13:57 UTC
Return-Path: <krose@krose.org>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A34C23A0B79 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 06:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=krose.org
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 lufRK9NI-ZYZ for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 06:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92c.google.com (mail-ua1-x92c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD8843A0BC5 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 06:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92c.google.com with SMTP id b24so246994uak.2 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 06:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=krose.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=d5sewHoVOc/a2tOp9qDeMoczKwl/q1FM8/0GEPwNCzA=; b=FjIpy42qrnTUwfwjrqswzd+eBOz1Qz7B1ClFJZmQjhN8XMGBAlOh1kZ1Of0SJaRLf0 LoFRAdeO5gGTGKi8Vefi1pCt7xYuD+j9TdjiJn+62k4r3ORkd78nz5mTBblK+IK69T/3 v+fDGuEH/c59MhL5brw/JM3sQBotFAFrB/bJQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=d5sewHoVOc/a2tOp9qDeMoczKwl/q1FM8/0GEPwNCzA=; b=q/zoWsaoqB0aOcZYDsPumSrAH1hd699oRhBN39Jx/wp+FOiinSVpTZJwXeBxxFyDcB UHiRaApdNxOpWRU6KaGrHv/Ous62BUvf3KRnvZ0HSNL9NFb0WZMqvuobvoRIBDXB55nw /1O3eihqAxI7r3nNJLZfzBhb3BytX0xkXXw1rYGJeRx4KHesWDvAmchodKl9z14Mx15F DV0KNhLyKfiFgFwph7EsNhqFiJ1QJeb8iNYqKd7a+LgAkzXFp+Hj+WXI/ZL1qD+yRXdF rQ7wK3che4nmzf+HJ6WwPdbnV6iEq3yDzfKwcY/gsUZ1ZUyoEUxn8eKlnlfiq2uplQ4A YukQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5301ax1eWsAnn37zaHcn2gMsteEBUnZHyuvInXPSw5NGOP06Gkn2 oGp4MeGsL7KK/NliPtI2M4/s4j843WnKRqejYkNtow==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJysicxq5idDc9dpr2qRJFugvhELlC2eaja6zyqGcnNsqYhd/kMXtlIX0MXJ6Zsxjwm4NTQMjlLXnu7dwD+YtAU=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:65c7:: with SMTP id n7mr18874872uaq.30.1593611858816; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 06:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR19MB40450EE357BEECD723AB06F183820@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <CABcZeBM9A1RxOiHGZdBznTb7zzArG5GTQs=bhNtBy90tSXs3Pg@mail.gmail.com> <AM0PR08MB3716528B48BCF9447002B551FA6F0@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <21886_1593608278_5EFC8856_21886_470_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330314EBA5C@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <AM0PR08MB371604E04179C212341100EEFA6C0@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR08MB371604E04179C212341100EEFA6C0@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
From: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 09:57:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJU8_nXR_FOhNrSatf_pHke7QRrzGjEKjeFvUAeH9ijgLzJnpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>
Cc: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, int-area <int-area@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, IETF SAAG <saag@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c1479605a961ac89"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/7pugcM--keSpKTia8kxBCWpH9tY>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 13:57:50 -0000
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:20 AM Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com> wrote: > I noticed this in various IETF discussions and so I will describe it in > the abstract. > > > > A group of people propose an idea. Those who do not like the idea are then > asked to convince the original contributors that their idea is not sound or > contribute text so make it look nicer. > > Not only is this requiring me to spend my time on something I don’t agree > with but it turns out that no discussions will change the mind of the > original contributors. They just strongly believe in their ideas. They will > keep proposing the same idea over and over again (for years) till it gets > published as an RFC. > I don't understand why so many are opposed to publishing a document that merely describes how operators manage protocols in the absence of header encryption, and how header encryption interferes with those practices. That is, at least, in its original form, before this WG decided it needed to incorporate pro-encryption advocacy, greatly complicating the document and the resulting analysis. For the OG version, I ask myself the following questions: Does the document describe reality? Yes: it tells us what practices operators employ today. Is the document useful? Yes: see above, plus it makes clear that there will be an impact to operators and/or protocol users from this evolution. Does the document establish an IETF position on encryption? No. There are plenty of other published RFCs that embody the spirit "encrypt all the things". This document does not change that. Does the document make normative statements about future protocol development? No. On what basis would I therefore oppose publication? I may or may not have opinions about prioritization of user privacy over manageability, the tussle between manageability and deployability, and what alternatives are available to operators for managing protocols with encrypted headers. I would be happy to help express those in a follow-on document. But this document describing where those conflicts lie is a *prerequisite* to developing those alternatives. And frankly those opinions are irrelevant to the intended content of *this* document. Kyle
- [Int-area] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-t… Black, David
- Re: [Int-area] [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): … Paul Vixie
- Re: [Int-area] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): d… Kyle Rose
- Re: [Int-area] [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): … Roni Even
- Re: [Int-area] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ie… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): … Holland, Jake
- Re: [Int-area] [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): … Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [Int-area] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): d… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Int-area] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): d… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Int-area] [tsvwg] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-s… Colin Perkins
- Re: [Int-area] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): d… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Int-area] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): d… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Int-area] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): d… Kyle Rose
- Re: [Int-area] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): d… Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [Int-area] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): d… Joseph Touch
- Re: [Int-area] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): d… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Int-area] [tsvwg] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-s… tom petch
- Re: [Int-area] [tsvwg] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-s… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [Int-area] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): d… Ruediger.Geib