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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

> 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.
"""


>> * 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.
"""

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/