IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-dir] [Last-Call] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-10

"touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 17 April 2023 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D544C14F749; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.315
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.315 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hWg5OaxAVjoC; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-2.web-hosting.com (server217-2.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.98]) (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 A64E9C14F693; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=SXDCHVCHuDBQqII7BBiayhp6I+SfggWG0Wi5VQ0A2/8=; b=3212rVJanrYqrpe9o1IakvMDZA b/5NWnoBtnIj+vr2n584XDzJLGTXoczRsF5Lg+Fwc325YOM2bwROXev/xeFMEmpMor+y/yYzsyvnC eXrYkNHvDfeDlXtTBcDwGyiBVmeGf/GkHaOA0BTXSJMcGblTsa/Rcavs7DzS5JPud/yAxhXVQ/G9R J9CMtJmLYQmBmljxRKHFCzdnsEq0f+xSNueLriEUiN4hhdUIeYd0J2m1gpXKZyhaGONnJDxXPM3q0 eEPC5GoGkm2FQ3sXFE6GlF2YXUv5LNnpxPWdvf/4F0Y6hnUXQ+Ttwib8Mlcr3oiWt70b81OG3Xxfy 67YXPGJA==;
Received: from [172.58.208.248] (port=38969 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1poRre-000Fgk-Os; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 12:38:07 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F5FBAEDD-3A6D-430F-8BAC-762195746F7C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.500.231\))
From: "touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAccAvR-G7UYDWtj+SKaMDdP_rAjgDW27wHM+qm7h9D5yFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:37:50 -0700
Cc: int-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip.all@ietf.org
Message-Id: <D04BA5A7-FCAF-489C-AF30-71EC5FB9E25B@strayalpha.com>
References: <168152936276.58402.12408511926010382248@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAC8QAccAvR-G7UYDWtj+SKaMDdP_rAjgDW27wHM+qm7h9D5yFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: sarikaya@ieee.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.500.231)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/boAmRJWyropxcMH-0BtJGHeDUCs>
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] [Last-Call] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-10
X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." <int-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 16:38:16 -0000

Hi, Behcet,

> On Apr 17, 2023, at 8:49 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Joe,
> Note. This message is directed to intarea.
> As a tunneling expert you are the right person to review this document, at least I believe so.
> 
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 10:29 PM Joseph Touch via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org <mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote:
>> Reviewer: Joseph Touch
>> Review result: Not Ready
>> 
>> This review focuses on the behavior of the tunnel from an IP perspective. The
>> HTTP aspects are not considered.
>> 
>> In summary, the document presents a method for tunneling IP packets over an
>> HTTP connection. Its terminology and discussion is confusing, being presented
>> largely from the perspective of the HTTP mechanism and not sufficiently from
>> the perspective of the resulting IP tunnel that is provided. Details are
>> provided below.
>> 
>> —
...
>> Sec 7 explains many aspects of IP packet handling that are already sufficiently
>> described in RFCs 1122 and 1812 (for IPv4) and 8200 (for IPv6).  That section
>> unnecessarily repeats that detail and is also vague as to where particular
>> behaviors are to be realized. I.e., parsing the IP header, hopcount processing,
>> and packet forwarding. The document should just clearly state that tunnels
>> behave as links
> 
>  
>> (as explained in draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels)
> 
> But the draft-intarea-tunnels doesn't talk about the type of tunnel described in this draft, i.e. tunnels over an HTTP connection.
> Maybe you can add it before it becomes an RFC.

It mentions them generically in the first paragraph of section 1 (IP in higher layers).

Everything else in the doc applies to IP in X for all X. Yes, ultimately, this sort of tunnel can be included in the list of what’s possible.

That list is constantly increasing and not likely to ever be complete, though.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email