Re: [saag] [tsvwg] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-19.txt> (Considerations around Transport Header Confidentiality, Network Operations, and the Evolution of Internet Transport Protocols) to Informational RFC

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 11/2/21 16:43, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:28 PM Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/2/21 16:11, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:40 AM Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/2/21 15:18, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>>> [...]
[....]
>>>
>>> Regardless of HBH though, if the preponderence of transport headers
>>> are encrytped then network security policiy that relies on the
>>> information will need to change.
>>
>> The folks running networks might as well argue that if you want your
>> protocol to be successfully deployed (or at all deployed), your protocol
>> might need to change.
>>
> Perhaps, but in order to change the protocol to satisfy the
> requirements of folks running networks, we'd need to know *what* the
> requirements are.

src IP address, dst ip address, upper layer protocol type, src port 
number, dst port number



> For instance, if someone were to say that networks
> require more information than what is in the IP header to successfully
> deliver packets,

That assumes that networks just blindly forward packets based on the dst 
(and possibly src) addresses. But operational practice suggests that 
that's not the case.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492