Re: [tcpinc] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpcrypt-09: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 17 November 2017 07:37 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47322128C84; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:37:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 QSQfJCKi6I5C; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:37:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bgl-iport-2.cisco.com (bgl-iport-2.cisco.com [72.163.197.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CD0F12741D; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:37:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2049; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1510904259; x=1512113859; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4Ewgn2dBKht40IGAumQgxlsd1igtKCGOLEAfzuTedPA=; b=CDkAXHsMTpw+ICKBh127yWMXbjLqvKvAxrvT0nsuoXVv1U0OjXmojPis o/r2SjXb3OaGbfpt8EwpUAp2hbxCfo6DkFvlxp1AAVL7iunpPGqCpvdve xpRveWtqoSD/1epfILoK0NFtvLIgbSlkT2Plx//c/CPt2HAwb6MW7uCsC 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0COAAAnkQ5a/xjFo0hcDgsBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEHAQEBAQGFDoQmih90j38vlmIQggEKhTsChR8YAQEBAQEBAQEBayiFHwE?= =?us-ascii?q?FIxVBEAsYAgImAgJXBg0IAQGKIKk5gieLAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBASCBD?= =?us-ascii?q?4Ilg1yCEoMChFyDUYJjBYo0iFKGGokblQqMAYdHjjyHdIE5HzmBdDQhCB0Vgy6?= =?us-ascii?q?DEIEPTDSLBwEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,407,1505779200"; d="scan'208";a="79386132"
Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-1.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Nov 2017 07:37:35 +0000
Received: from [10.75.233.228] (hkidc-vpn-client-233-228.cisco.com [10.75.233.228]) by bgl-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAH7bXkc009390; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 07:37:34 GMT
To: Daniel B Giffin <dbg@scs.stanford.edu>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpcrypt@ietf.org, Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>, tcpinc-chairs@ietf.org, tcpinc@ietf.org, wangzitao@huawei.com
References: <151030381876.29951.5493226784893679063.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20171117063150.GD11150@scs.stanford.edu>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <91862dd1-7bd6-5ba5-fbed-bba5d19dfadb@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:37:33 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171117063150.GD11150@scs.stanford.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/aYUcjaTq95cDzo-3RdtG5gtDdcM>
Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpcrypt-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Working group mailing list for TCP Increased Security \(tcpinc\)" <tcpinc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpinc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpinc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 07:37:41 -0000

Thanks.

Regards, Benoit
> Benoit Claise wrote:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Nothing against the publication of this document but ... as for any
>> experimental RFCs, we must describe the criteria for a successful experiment
>> (evaluation)?
> Oh right!
>
> I've added this section:
>
> 	9.  Experiments
>
>     Some experience will be required to determine whether the tcpcrypt
>     protocol can be deployed safely and successfully across the diverse
>     environments of the global internet.
>
>     Safety means that TCP implementations that support tcpcrypt are able
>     to communicate reliably in all the same settings as they would
>     without tcpcrypt.  As described in [I-D.ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno]
>     Section 9, this property can be subverted if middleboxes strip ENO
>     options from non-SYN segments after allowing them in SYN segments; or
>     if the particular communication patterns of tcpcrypt offend the
>     policies of middleboxes doing deep-packet-inspection.
>
>     Success, in addition to safety, means that hosts which implement
>     tcpcrypt actually enable encryption when they connect to each other.
>     This property depends on the network's treatment of the TCP-ENO
>     handshake, and can be subverted if middleboxes merely strip unknown
>     TCP options or if they terminate TCP connections and relay data back
>     and forth unencrypted.
>
>     Ease of implementation will be a further challenge to deployment.
>     Because tcpcrypt requires encryption operations on frames that may
>     span TCP segments, kernel implementations are forced to buffer
>     segments in different ways than are necessary for plain TCP.  More
>     implementation experience will show how much additional code
>     complexity is required in various operating systems, and what kind of
>     performance effects can be expected.
>
> .
>