Re: [Stackevo] [IAB] draft-hardie-path-signals and draft-trammell-wire-image

["Brian Trammell (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

hi Mark,

> On 9 Apr 2018, at 02:39, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 6 Apr 2018, at 8:01 pm, Brian Trammell (IETF) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> * 1. Introduction seems to skip around a discussion of whether participants in lower-layer protocols are also participants in "higher" layer protocols -- i.e., is participation transitive?
>> 
>> Hm, this is a good point...  I looked at this for a while, though, and I couldn't come up with text here without going down a side-tracked philosophical rabbit hole; suggestions?
> 
> I'd change the first sentence in the second paragraph to something like:
> 
> """
> Implicit in a protocol specification is the information the protocol radiates toward nonparticipant observers of the messages sent among participants, often including participants in lower layer protocols.
> """

Yeah, this is better. Changed, thanks!

> 
>>> * 3.3.1. Invariants begs the question of what networks will do with the parts of the message that are *not* invariant, and the resulting strategies that protocol designers might take -- i.e., some form of encryption, greasing, etc. Not sure if we intend to publish a separate doc here, but it might be worth mentioning.
>> 
>> I've added some text here to the working copy (https://britram.github.io/draft-trammell-wire-image/draft-trammell-wire-image.html#rfc.section.3.3.1) -- is this what you had in mind?
> 
> I'd add something like:
> 
> """
> Parts of a protocol's wire image that are purposefully not invariant because they are not intended to be visible or manipulated by defines on paths should, where possible, be protected by encryption, "greasing" [ref?] or other techniques to assure that they do not become invariant over time, through ossification.
> """

I'd thought this followed, but yeah it bears making explicit.

I'm pointedly avoiding referring to "greasing" by that name here because it seems to be that the discussion around it in QUIC has become dominated by overgeneralization and magical thinking; a reference to use-it-or-lose-it seems more precise (Martin, I presume you're intending to publish that one on the IAB stream eventually?).

Have reworked, will submit -04 shortly.

Cheers,

Brian