Re: New Version Notification for draft-dawkins-quic-what-to-do-with-multipath-03.txt

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Paul and Mikkel,

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 1:46 AM Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen wrote on 2021-01-07 09:17:
> > ...
> >
> > From a quick read, I believe you have captured many relevant use cases
> > but perhaps the document does not capture the concerns related til NAT
> > translation and firewalls.
> >
> > ...
>
> i'm not sure enterprise concerns such as NAT or firewalls are important
> to this audience. QUIC is policy-immune by design, and those of us who
> operate secure private networks (schools, enterprise, military, police,
> and many homes) are expecting to simply deny UDP and force the use of an
> outbound proxy.
>
> i'd love to be wrong, but section 3 of
> https://quicwg.org/ops-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-manageability.html seems
> clear as to the intended entropy level and that this level really is
> intentional. unfortunately for me as a security private network
> operator, my needs in this regard are the same as russia's.
>

My goal in this draft was to focus on strategies for path selection when
you have two or more validated paths available.

I think that in order to have those paths validated, you already have to
have navigated the potentially twisty maze of NATs and firewall policies.

I recognize that actually getting multiple QUIC paths validated across NATs
and firewalls is important to actual deployments, but I think it's
orthogonal to path selection in a scheduler with multiple paths already
available.

Does that make sense?

And thanks for taking a look at this draft. I know there's a lot of mailing
list traffic with all the ballot e-mail going back and forth!

Best,

Spencer