Re: [Spud] New Version Notification for draft-herbert-transports-over-udp-00.txt

[Brian Trammell <[e-mail]>]

hi Michael,

On your questions as to the PLUS charter:

> On 22 May 2016, at 19:30, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Furthermore, I believe that this discussions matters for PLUS/SPUD, since:
> 
> ·         If two different, worked-out candidate users of the common substrate seem to have similar requirements for signaling information in clear-text, this could be some lessons learnt for what may be required in the common substrate.

This is a good point, and a reason for coordination between the PLUS and QUIC efforts (should WGs be chartered here).

> ·         Even if this is not the case, the current excessive use of the term “encryption” in the PLUS/SPUD charter IMHO has to be reviewed, since at least two potential candidate protocols actually seems to use information in clear text. Example: “The primary goal of PLUS is to enable the deployment of arbitrary, fully encrypted transport protocols”. Well, at least I learn now that not everything is “fully” encrypted…

This is imprecise language and should be cleaned up. The point is that everything above a PLUS shim layer is encrypted, and everything below open to the path. There should probably be something outlining the broad architecture here, which would make this more clear.

> ·         Finally, from the current charter I don’t understand whether PLUS/SPUD would consider the requirements of middleboxes designed to provide user anonymity (e.g., TOR-like). I’d personally be fine with flagging their specific requirements as out-of-scope. But for sure there is a user community of that sort of infrastructure and it may make sense to discuss early how to deal with that.

I *think* this is orthogonal -- I can't see what in PLUS would break TOR, or how stuff in PLUS could make TOR work better, without partially redesigning both... can you say more about what your concerns are here?

Cheers,

Brian