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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 7:57 AM Magnus Westerlund <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2021-06-02 at 15:32 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote
>


> With the caveat that I am not a huge fan of requirements documents, this
> seems like it's just punting all requirements discussions to the protocol
> document. If we really don't have consensus on 2.4 (and without taking a
> position either way on that), then I would rather bracket that requirement
> and declare consensus on what we have.
>
>
> If with "bracketing" means clarify that these are potentially optional
> parts then I think that is a reasonable direction.
>

This is what I am suggesting.


> I don't personally strongly desire 2.4 but it's clear to me that 2.4 is an
> essential part of operating a large class of corporate VPNs, so if we want
> to have a generic VPN protocol, we need it, no? To the extent to which it
> is complicated, I would suggest we try to solve it (borrowing from IPsec as
> appropriate) and if we discover we cannot within a reasonable period of
> time, then we can consider punting it.
>
>
> So I am not objecting to the WG working on 2.4, and as you say it will be
> necessary. However, I would strongly prefer to have that functionality
> being an extension of a basic core.
>

What I am proposing here is that we:

- Mark this requirement as not having consensus in the reqts doc
- Try to develop it contemporaneously, and if it is done in time, put it in
the core document and if not, consider an extension.

-Ekr