Re: Request for Authenticated but not Encrypted Traffic

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Fri, 30 September 2022 07:26 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3CE9C1524AB for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redbarn.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gHVqIHOJcCgG for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from util.redbarn.org (util.redbarn.org [24.104.150.222]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4448C14F607 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by util.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AB77167A42; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 07:25:54 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=redbarn.org; s=util; t=1664522754; bh=R1GtLIhZtDd3e02+0Lwsynki9MMpZ55TkwqlPOA1wPI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=cs9xHYo2JFRZkSDmObmvfX19qa1lpvV+g8ITsMRErNRAsVeDGWaN/9AY+FTJ/DzNO r2jEpSUaup4kXlwp2szdgWtOiuxJIGGdSj0OsGBo97gwcETTKprNjrgDQUxGxg9vl3 FKFkm3eQK1q/mxpbG4/Gg/e7tj8+ZegTrqwaK6vc=
Received: from [24.104.150.175] (dhcp-175.access.rits.tisf.net [24.104.150.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 520A9C3FCF; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 07:25:54 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Request for Authenticated but not Encrypted Traffic
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>
References: <SJ0PR08MB82889F488CCA7D8FC4997ACEFA579@SJ0PR08MB8288.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAMm+Lwh1DWyVNL7M6q0gAS77HyN5KXRa3cNn732ivbAMGSFVDg@mail.gmail.com> <SJ0PR08MB82888EE2140D219EF758CF76FA569@SJ0PR08MB8288.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <da161bf2-2eea-77b9-c96f-e391fe867c3b@lear.ch> <fb875699-312a-497d-0b5c-2da95b26268c@redbarn.org> <140CFDE5-B5AC-4342-8A5D-41D7EE92B43E@tzi.org>
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <1b7329fd-d447-fb76-9d3c-4e09f58ee0f0@redbarn.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:25:53 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.57
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <140CFDE5-B5AC-4342-8A5D-41D7EE92B43E@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/zpJTG9jJitiLhmyzJVTf38uVtug>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 07:26:00 -0000


Carsten Bormann wrote on 2022-09-30 00:18:
> On 2022-09-30, at 07:54, Paul Vixie <paul=40redbarn.org@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> (my network, my rules.)
> 
> You can implement that by suppressing traffic that doesn’t authorize visibility.

if visibility is authorizable, and if the on-the-wire format allows a 
gateway to know if visibility has been authorized for a packet, your 
statement holds true.

an example of this is dropping UDP that doesn't come from one of a few 
local servers or go to one of a few distant services. i don't like it.

another example is a firewall rule for "use a proxy or stay home". i 
don't like this either.

what did you have in mind as an example of this, that i might not dislike?

-- 
P Vixie