Re: [tcpinc] AD review of tcp-eno

Kyle Rose <> Fri, 28 July 2017 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AFDA131C3B for <>; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZVvBHJNvjoUx for <>; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC4CE127869 for <>; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a18so63053847qta.0 for <>; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=isnP94uhpr7RIzmQ8Pl5T8Z2/j6BwYPjoHgPF+8tpGM=; b=dRHaqsdsC2X7p3lJLY4DodxkS9awijhvSvTPdhhd3/ib8zMN8KeiayqjA1UJjeo9en He0bK2nWuy7ndp5sDy8BDVa1iUTF/YyOjN6TLA2NpZ6PtpqXvw1vUzs/xE+yrK7bF0cO QYY+D99iHKOG0Gxe+TXLsvhe6S8D3ojBmhHYg=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=isnP94uhpr7RIzmQ8Pl5T8Z2/j6BwYPjoHgPF+8tpGM=; b=SdYth/VszeSM7GyVphgCrWDjRbxa4S8PghBXns7/yGqu9JjCGZiMnR7RJ1flux8bvV idtWjZxsuFPv24dX3wqcUR2vO5vOYWnhi+9MN3SDPN70YTG47se9HCbHxpnvZms1UNGB bHtZSQkUDUFixc6WYSyRD0d07Ka46rtH53z6Q2c5otp2Ik3AwNSuojW7u+5oLFdstqZD XHwDGVy1UDMZ07UO6N5KXo6SpDlaLbo9P3v4WovSCFWjFsaMikZ1b6l1WI5vq/Vbf9Pl 9hI7yRXdUDvlhYxepdVRtYh7BVmsXyehI07q/cctg2cDo0cXE6tdVWE/7FFVCR2ekoDA 03cQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110K6NP8yZx5y++u0m85MsAvtHvZJK9eJcAKH5Sg5WeY/NGGam3m 9nW1Qkh+iYQLrEfwTUgUW+uiPCxLO9C1
X-Received: by with SMTP id h33mr11749318qth.62.1501257536917; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: []
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Kyle Rose <>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 11:58:55 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <>
Cc: David Mazieres expires 2017-10-25 PDT <>,, tcpinc <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11403a5234663a055562c272"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpinc] AD review of tcp-eno
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Working group mailing list for TCP Increased Security \(tcpinc\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:59:03 -0000

It seems we've mostly hit on what needs to be done for the next draft, but
I wanted to address one item:

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <> wrote:

> > Since the point of TCP-ENO is to make it significantly easier to develop
> > future TEPs than it would be to develop TCP encryption schemes from
> > scratch, and since the TCP option for tcpcrypt and TCP-ENO caused a fair
> > amount of friction in the TCPINC working group, I feel reasonably
> > strongly that it would be best to give out TEP identifiers well in
> > advance of RFC publication, provided there is a plausible draft
> > specification.
> This is what early allocation is for. We could have also asked for early
> allocation for tcpinc as soon as the spec was reasonably stable but given
> there was no-one who was actually about to deploy this in the Internet, it
> was probably not necessary.
> Also I assume your intention here is that you still want to have an RFC at
> the end. If you go for „Specification required“ any kind of spec would be
> accepted and it doesn’t have to be an RFC. Therefor „RFC Required“ would be
> better.
> Also, as I said it is not necessary to note explicitly that early
> allocation is possible (because that’s always possible), but you can still
> make a point that people are encourage to ask for early allocation (at wg
> adoption time?).

Does it make sense to allocate a few TEP IDs (e.g., 0x7c-0x7f) as explicit
"for testing purposes: not for production use" IDs that implementors can
use in testing? Another alternative is an explicit ExID-like mechanism, but
that seems far too heavy-weight for something like ENO. A range like this
would at least offer implementors a no-effort way to do their own
development and testing without poisoning other TEP IDs.