Re: [Masque] WGLC for "Requirements for a MASQUE Protocol to Proxy IP Traffic"

The working group last call for "Requirements for a MASQUE Protocol to Proxy IP Traffic <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-masque-ip-proxy-reqs/>" has concluded. Thank you all for your comments and the resulting discussion. 

It is worth noting that there is very strong consensus within the working group to move on to concrete solutions, and we are eager to do so at IETF 111. However, the last call and corresponding reviews did raise a number of questions and comments that we believe to be worth addressing, many of them editorial in nature. We will work with the editors to make sure all of these are tracked in GitHub <https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-ip-proxy-reqs> and will post the resulting pull requests to the list.

It is clear that most aspects of the document are non-contentious, whereas others do not have clear rough consensus. In particular, it is our assessment that the use case in Section 2.4 (network to network connectivity) does not have rough consensus, though it does have clear pockets of support both to include and to omit it. Additionally, we are unable to declare rough consensus on the related requirement in Section 3.5 (route negotiation).

Section 2.4 is an optional feature and Section 3.5 is mostly related to that use case. Additionally, trust and threat model details that would influence the solution for this use case are not discussed (and may certainly evolve as the solution is defined). While the rest of the document and the other use cases do have rough consensus, it is unclear that we need to strongly define this optional use case beyond ensuring that the remaining requirements do not preclude it.

For this reason, the chairs believe the best path forward is to update the document to best match that outcome while the other comments are addressed. In particular, this means removing use case 2.4 and punting requirement 3.5.

Keeping in mind the desire to proceed with concrete solutions, we recognize that leaving open these points for later discussion brings the potential to consume additional working group time re-litigating some of the same conversations that have already taken place. We would like to ask that working group members keep this in mind and focus on new information discovered through the process of defining options for concrete solutions as a guide to help constrain those discussions.

Thanks,
Eric and Chris

> On May 26, 2021, at 7:33 AM, Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net> wrote:
> 
> This email starts the working group last call for "Requirements for a MASQUE Protocol to Proxy IP Traffic", located here:
> 
>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-masque-ip-proxy-reqs/
> 
> This last call serves to solidify requirements for subsequent work on CONNECT-IP solutions, as discussed in [1].
> 
> Please review the document and send your comments to the list by June 11.
> 
> Note the the GitHub repository for this draft can be found here: 
> 
>    https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-ip-proxy-reqs
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris and Eric
> 
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/LXObvy1DDuxLs-3dndyNKY0W4Gs/
> 
> -- 
> Masque mailing list
> Masque@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque