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

FWIW,

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:04 AM, Brian Trammell (IETF) <ietf@trammell.ch>
wrote:

> hi Mark,
>
> > On 9 Apr 2018, at 02:39, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 6 Apr 2018, at 8:01 pm, Brian Trammell (IETF) <ietf@trammell.ch>
> 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?).
>

I couldn't possibly comment on "magical thinking" (tempting though that
might be), but "overgeneralization" does sound about right to me. Right
enough that I hope Martin's "intending to publish" is a Yes.

Spencer

>
> Have reworked, will submit -04 shortly.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stackevo mailing list
> Stackevo@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo
>
>