IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 18 September 2020 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: masque@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: masque@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422093A0D20 for <masque@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 09:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 (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 O8arNiqT2yra for <masque@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 09:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) (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 54E203A0D17 for <masque@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 09:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id w11so6855827lfn.2 for <masque@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 09:45:15 -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=FRvV/D9mS4EgZ7nlfCkks2fdY40zkCOKJrOD+JrU1Ng=; b=pPNFb5sRkqIUtQ3KRL7Rn4Vh8Z5y6opbUPvRDe2zlRFhA6BraWcgY7wZGQnqkeYQsl zsJoOVnImQZSnp59PR+QbKprJhaOVV59OkQm8qctIxbvRPUJMLtO4b6khM1wIv9KYHbm VQSgV1d4WADZIJw9l3pSpvoHmsepc/wHajB7KSP3Dp2exAHZmDXk9kYA4dZIFl/GkAYo BCPxVxW4it7wxoL1N4Y4SBkaoMMcYgpIO4QL6xKFqr2BWicw+TvoFK0rYOtMciVld/W2 99jvfJ/k9tBTPqOR7SMKK+cg9PTpSaS3/MkJpQvr2QZ7lP7ZKUWXv7IzQ7nYQEjOXSzj 4goA==
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=FRvV/D9mS4EgZ7nlfCkks2fdY40zkCOKJrOD+JrU1Ng=; b=XKp2/eWLbFHCRx4T6VEBqRF6exK3xgOrSz2kh7in4uvatcGTUMQNOLRspL+9yEOaBK k38cEHAi7RnAoISKAkr4Ovou4vTuYpOSbi5T6s00SpU055qtGs9q2ErEBQ5DLFcbqUjr YH/Xzg7+KtOQ8lpvE6jzc6TEi9FCVDdRXdLjQpAwuy6SzNL8Iblhv7P9u1I3er1e5QEb ZJrr1iTCQ6/o5S0/h8vPdEgQ9KBSwsqXU4JMSShaFcsHQLlWZRPVTyE2Y+R9J6ceJhL5 wOMUHbUZHLYEA8pKEdasq3Ok98Y4dfJzKuJvE1fyQcfRjaafalzA4V705wY9h7dHMc2/ V2Bg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532GIu44jSa+pk73ZWTGvkgOp2+0jsEZgDEiArCevuZYiINREvM4 PBW7MF/3nFInC3mZgftw2LEZvTWlKRrEh4YnM4o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyqnfTsB6A5/kqzKK/BDiurlQM9e0lYUelhNLenTGixqeb0m3kG6Odow4vnune8njW/taxWEz9TUFvYDa2kbRo=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4355:: with SMTP id o21mr12306378lfl.210.1600447513441; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4f83a742-e6c3-4aef-a26b-1801ecf19cdf@www.fastmail.com> <d360df8c2870acdc4b312ab3f5f9031610a24703.camel@ericsson.com> <CAKKJt-fbdUgpCuBZ57sU+Nv=qB8+zBRCfjqUZ7KneZrEpxu0fQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-fbdUgpCuBZ57sU+Nv=qB8+zBRCfjqUZ7KneZrEpxu0fQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 09:45:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPDSy+7QpSUdpLzQFxb0HULgQrGL-vy3JJUP0pNfu=Q-hR6Zqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "caw@heapingbits.net" <caw@heapingbits.net>, "masque@ietf.org" <masque@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000085385005af993935"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/ui3aPoJvIxAVHxhpJGvy4lX9M9E>
Subject: Re: [Masque] Adoption call for "Requirements for a MASQUE Protocol to Proxy IP Traffic"
X-BeenThere: masque@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiplexed Application Substrate over QUIC Encryption <masque.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/masque>, <mailto:masque-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/masque/>
List-Post: <mailto:masque@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:masque-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque>, <mailto:masque-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 16:45:17 -0000

Thank you for comments, Mirja, Spencer, and Magnus!

If I may summarize them in the following bullet points:
- we should reach WG consensus on use-cases
- we should clarify the last use-case
- we should clarify which requirement relates to which use-case

(There were also detailed comments on individual requirements that
would be better discussed on individual threads, or GitHub issues)

I absolutely agree with these bullet points. As per our charter, the
goal of this entire draft is for us to reach WG consensus on
use-cases and requirements for IP proxying, before the WG starts
work on a solution. However, none of those comments justify
delaying adoption of the document. The call for adoption is there
to ensure there is WG interest in the draft, and that folks are willing
to review and comment - which your messages indicate! Adopting
the draft will actually facilitate answering the three points above,
since WG consensus is better reached on parts of WG documents,
as opposed to individual submissions.

Thanks,
David


On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:43 AM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, just to start the discussion Magnus said we need to have (and I agree
> that we need to have it, whether before, or after, adoption),
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 3:27 AM Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=
> 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Which of these requirements (in
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cms-masque-ip-proxy-reqs-01.txt)
>
> 3.1.  IP Session Establishment
> 3.2.  Proxying of IP packets
> 3.3.  Maximum Transmission Unit
> 3.4.  IP Assignment
> 3.5.  Route Negotiation
> 3.6.  Identity
> 3.7.  Transport Security
> 3.8.  Authentication
> 3.9.  Reliable Transmission of IP Packets
> 3.10.  Flow Control
> 3.11.  Indistinguishability
> 3.12.  Support HTTP/2 and HTTP/3
> 3.13.  Multiplexing
> 3.14.  Load balancing
> 3.15.  Extensibility
>
> belongs to each use case?
>
>
>> 2.1.  Consumer VPN
>> 2.2.  Point to Point Connectivity
>> 2.3.  Point to Network Connectivity
>> 2.4.  Network to Network Connectivity
>>
>
> (I'm happy to have this conversation in Github, but Magnus said we needed
> to have it here, so I'm following his excellent leadership)
>
> Best,
>
> Spencer
> --
> Masque mailing list
> Masque@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email