Re: [Strint-attendees] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-iab-strint-report-00.txt

Eliot Lear <> Fri, 02 May 2014 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3402B20016 for <>; Fri, 2 May 2014 05:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3502; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1399033768; x=1400243368; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=SuXBmjTj+VnBY03pAYn9lk/KUp/LVR2LPe7LO/L5cr4=; b=XLiimerXw//8XVA6Rh8fXah35hzP4i4hlRAYQrzSBnaAeUdJHnrEF/S8 vM28a7nKm3fgrJL4+qKSeg0AoO60B1PbvEMlWyIkogTLWeq91o6V0BW2C fKpxWlK7Znh5rQoIVNFlgVDuV0OMmTdhUxKqLYzneyej5gYqTOZJHQcI1 k=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,972,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="34614364"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 02 May 2014 12:29:27 +0000
Received: from ELEAR-M-C3ZS.CISCO.COM ([]) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s42CTQXc030978; Fri, 2 May 2014 12:29:26 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 14:29:30 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:, Stephen Farrell <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000605000102020902020901"
Subject: Re: [Strint-attendees] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-iab-strint-report-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: STRINT Workshop Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 12:29:28 -0000

On 5/2/14, 1:31 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>    We also discussed the idea of encrypting traffic from CE to CE as
>    part of a L3VPN or such.  This could allow hiding of addresses,
>    including source, and headers.  From my further conversation with Ron
>    Bonica, some customers already do encryption (though not hiding the
>    source address) like this.  So, I'm not sure this is very practically
>    useful as an enhancement except for encouraging deployment and use.
>    Finally, we discussed whether it would be useful to have a means of
>    communicating where and what layers are doing encryption on an
>    application's traffic path.  The initial idea of augmenting ICMP has
>    some issues (not visible to application, ICMP packets frequently
>    filtered) as well as potential work (determining how to trust the
>    report of encryption).  It would be interesting to understand if such
>    communication is actually needed and what the requirements would be.
> The use of the first person in the above paras is confusing.

Well indeed.  I just went through this with another workshop report
(ITAT) and it would seem that the preference for workshop reports is to
say "The workshop", especially as these documents come out with of the
IAB stream and therefore there is a need to make clear who the "we" is.