Re: [IPsec] Possible new charter text to cover iptfs.

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 07 August 2019 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D07120047; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 16:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=nohats.ca
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 z_7wtlC91IQI; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 16:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 B9B34120033; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 16:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 463nBZ20rkzL2S; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 01:04:22 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1565219062; bh=BhP2iHQVVto4W75UXo+YbhuQfTGWOXniALa8R+DtVGU=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=IVim0Y38quaceDzfCc5XLr5TsKznc+kMjIEupIkdxTUP02rZXbH0eA8mvZDmWGH4Q d4r1/Bwc9x6k13d3vTnYs21aWflb1MFN+K2+eg6PZkV6+WA5Jn1nIdmTNvYgI8Ls7+ ZzD2cGs75Wxq5SzsbGrYNjwVTPLTC6+tQdLqzZI4=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GzTm0sNCsy-h; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 01:04:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 01:04:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.163.87.139] (199-7-157-56.eng.wind.ca [199.7.157.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94348353F92; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 19:04:17 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 94348353F92
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16F203)
In-Reply-To: <DD6E8B10-06CB-4CA2-9B0D-2CE13B494BB2@chopps.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 19:04:15 -0400
Cc: "ipsec@ietf.org WG" <ipsec@ietf.org>, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <90A18DDA-F20B-4B0C-8FB6-EF5969F7B121@nohats.ca>
References: <DD6E8B10-06CB-4CA2-9B0D-2CE13B494BB2@chopps.org>
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/3x-zTvd_s87t8YtW4VuwgqdTiKM>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Possible new charter text to cover iptfs.
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 23:04:27 -0000

Seems broad enough - works for me

Sent from mobile device

> On Aug 7, 2019, at 06:38, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; wrote:
> 
> Hi ipsecme and chairs,
> 
> As discussed @IETF105 we need to update the charter in order to adopt the IPTFS draft, how does this look for addition to the charter?
> 
> "
> The demand for Traffic Flow Confidentiality has been increasing in the user
> community; however, the current method defined in RFC4303 (i.e., add null
> padding to each ESP payload) is very inefficient in it's use of network
> resources. The working group will develop an alternative TFC solution that
> provides for efficient use of network resources.
> "
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris.
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec