IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lwip] The LWIG WG has placed draft-mglt-lwig-minimal-esp in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Heinrich Singh <heinrich.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 06 September 2018 04:21 UTC

Return-Path: <heinrich.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7067F130E5B; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 21:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 8Wk3eTFZPkyJ; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 21:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (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 A771A130E5A; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 21:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id b19-v6so9971926wme.3; Wed, 05 Sep 2018 21:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WYzHug5i4bU+V7qaElbbVKrXoDGfP4yRKFuAiyMjKZk=; b=Jqyso8WJrxBOAihBPRPIhbsHgBQqfVBKTXWYlbH9jgeFpSWKhgjnRYiTCtgbwPYuZw OM1XVabp1YHjnvnpQ7ghh/n15h1Xcd52n+ehJN1iv/Ll+emxu5LPbK+mwmZPnNwvuQW4 Z20/eXXufVM3pWYozNFi+uioq+5eg+XQKv2NRAxUlmIkDbbyhrgBLleYUgyl3hEcZ2ir g67UupXAAmEGDR9AOvxCZxnMR8aO7fyluKl9UP5PEil2z7PMLYGDgSj5dFUOSZpzRJxI wbkNMKZAaM4Xhvj1FJrXtjp2fFrzxIVkXDlERmwYMit5BbKg0L++O05yYaiTqZYH9eAQ 7OpA==
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=WYzHug5i4bU+V7qaElbbVKrXoDGfP4yRKFuAiyMjKZk=; b=aSV58oaIkZpFoJBSpdye75WhYO0K5xV7d9LKFayNfcgrQPRNItv/eyJKBTr34y609z qi4kdhsoqcLbwi6z2SHx0+VQwhiX+hGCdq4EG9GJ4ozacVgi2eopjbj2sBZOSzFX9OhZ pseSBl/krKDhu+2Cb6DGby1gTZSfgjaEcJwGJY6EHuOB+A4AgtWfXV+3KMVKXyS1qs4M NsR1TmIzmjhkWF/S2eycoFh/P6ZEnJrrRba2haqORrUDvYc00H3QhIZ3uwXPf2JVpVoU PU4XOdHzX3YTLI8nQpuOGw47JxdVD/fEe31UNjCZxBQWlg4x2m6gGpi2SimNSNKltHbl uAPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51C0rtbZ19nlQRl6VT5GYDJRXlOma8hRR7Fl7PInQbixwNoEs4YL se71tlvfHxa5/EznHexWXcAVeFNSWO0lRP/cNsM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdYSaPF5dspRHefzrtO6QHtV3U8CKEWyJ/afdjKsfgr/Jqew3APFFpvfLsrKiZ30vC3nJKFBAZ7WMbYtaZqvo4Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:2d54:: with SMTP id t81-v6mr864864wmt.31.1536207680261; Wed, 05 Sep 2018 21:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAP_kZQqckPJhCn083sg8=PVpiO_+Ke=GhOKre=qujkk4k=dU7A@mail.gmail.com> <CAFxP68zOd5nfa-3R34bSDFctHFebap_42fAfkC_NJ=a_mU_MxQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFxP68zOd5nfa-3R34bSDFctHFebap_42fAfkC_NJ=a_mU_MxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Heinrich Singh <heinrich.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 07:21:09 +0300
Message-ID: <CAP_kZQqxJh1inyHzdtACjXQ16iLZWi+ShsRuUpo6a9drfbYSgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: zhencao.ietf@gmail.com
Cc: lwip@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001553fe05752c3908"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/qftx0Qbtd-unKUu0CjzAP0s9mis>
Subject: Re: [Lwip] The LWIG WG has placed draft-mglt-lwig-minimal-esp in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
X-BeenThere: lwip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Lightweight IP stack. Official mailing list for IETF LWIG Working Group." <lwip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lwip/>
List-Post: <mailto:lwip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 04:21:24 -0000

About RFC 6973, I mean that we have privacy guidelines. RFC 6973 does not
talk about ESP. But can we publish a draft saying don't use ESP privacy
features for some devices. It is different story if other implementations
don't use it also. Then OK.

Ciao
Heinrich

On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 at 14:05, Zhen Cao <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Heinrich,
>
> Thanks for your review and comments.  See my comments&questions to
> confirm inline.
>
> > I don't know why IETF would publish this document when they have rfc
> 6973.
> This draft has much content not stated in RFC6973 (which is a general
> recommendation) , e.g., overhead analysis /delay/handshake performance
> analysis.
>
> > I want to see some actual performance from a real ESP implementation
> where privacy is protected and energy is saved by tweaking the TFC and how
> often dummy packet is sent.
>
> Are you saying that you would like to see more implementation guidance
> other than what's been already provided?  or do you think the current
> recommendations are unreasonable?
>
> Btw, sharing the implementation code is encouraged but not mandatory
> in IETF.  We by default trust the authors because they are foremost
> responsible for their work (particularly informational ones).
>
> Best regards,
> Zhen
> >
> > Ciao
> > Heinrich
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lwip mailing list
> > Lwip@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>

v2.19.0 | Report a Bug | By Email