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

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 10 April 2018 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: stackevo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stackevo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5223612426E; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MWFrhEE5D5Xd; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22c.google.com (mail-yw0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A36371241F5; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id q66so3948079ywg.6; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZJdl2X1uyJjLZUY0E316YQ/c8oNFRh+s6mOltUMzcJs=; b=qDNUVDXdfsNSmXv7q6O1DZOrzVWgMvLxL28j0GNTOJR29dZ6ZAjBZ2wuFa3zI5Trcl pKo4V9JKMMlMvlaNUegEqqwVnI3ywudvoSmxCmr3sNmyraDlIdpgsx6SQ2ENaeU3uCLI ErVKOfpK6HhDrP1Iy3SRRn7pSLVgK+tAnDqvVVoG8MrSr6t3v1XgQYtrc39p6BvJrpJ5 Z+dss1Jla34yaezkWhtkQiJkmcsv7z+5rOQ0TAB5o2M1Flv/V7mjdPwJz6MnflMNJdfG JXA8lvTvepyMszsJ22tNe5sfdkNgRw6mo6Ey/fHuJjhlyF9HNAMmbqWmbAZeHwTIeIeI XvBA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZJdl2X1uyJjLZUY0E316YQ/c8oNFRh+s6mOltUMzcJs=; b=smdSKEvDQunG3ajCmvko9CnifMJk8TRNdwD8Kq2bE18yHHdXRJIh49FAUj9aegUiFl I53bFKAUvqVu3ido4y1MsADRRjr3jkpExrxSfNag/Fja+TkEOMxQR/AIlXsFez18TU21 E+alXyAlYi/093LOiqQeUjb0F29sZbFieNwTtZZvUsSSoxjGNBIh/rt9+pgyhHkbll+i LdujU/9y3ZUrO9rtDo5ZVMVzelO8JaJ9DURVnnUhSY1dhHns0SZ8/ugJ2eccUINAX0xw FteA+1w+6I+6UF9AHSvi2Vs5Ggax0zvBrlMsBq9ew9/L6tOnVtyP1KtJVTnNDpkSv1vW uWTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tDZwttPXrRcgo9iuzxY+VKztV0iYxG0pZ3GKhEx9oBOppXSET/A SlokaW6MLlfThvIwTU+3JQieo0BHnixNkvC3NVM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx481mw6HAtNbkG4uGrZxhSW+3yKMhZfKooY5PWAP6LAgbopFsoYXHcK+d5YeLiu8IOr+02rtWLklsH7Exi4zuBI=
X-Received: by 10.129.12.130 with SMTP id 124mr139326ywm.424.1523364541438; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a25:4d82:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <EB6FACE9-364E-48FC-B02B-65E88EAA29E2@trammell.ch>
References: <C986EAB5-CFE3-49AF-A19A-B087E63EE365@trammell.ch> <1641F7D4-E7E9-4A8D-88F2-3A07A0082AFD@mnot.net> <0CB88447-0F7C-4A8E-BE70-7CDF29C9FCE9@trammell.ch> <3C1B09FF-0CFC-4AB0-ACB6-B929E68F4BF6@mnot.net> <EB6FACE9-364E-48FC-B02B-65E88EAA29E2@trammell.ch>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 07:49:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-cDPM1+hWwWcTDbxbf89Y6c-ft836s0qde8vWvM1Gdi=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Stack Evolution Program <stackevo@iab.org>, IAB IAB <iab@iab.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1142ce365b1ec905697df210"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stackevo/23mJHn4k48jP1r1PeZK5ikaDryE>
Subject: Re: [Stackevo] [IAB] draft-hardie-path-signals and draft-trammell-wire-image
X-BeenThere: stackevo@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Stack Evolution Program Mailing List <stackevo.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/stackevo>, <mailto:stackevo-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stackevo/>
List-Post: <mailto:stackevo@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stackevo-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo>, <mailto:stackevo-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:49:05 -0000

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
>
>