Re: [Tsv-art] TSV Triage team: Review of IETF LC documents as of 10/11

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 10/12/2017 1:34 AM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> not sure, what your actual request is to the triage team but they
> usually don't assign tsv document for tsv-art review.
I was responding to Martin's request, not making one of my own.

> Also your concern seems to be quite fundamentally about the approach
> taken by the working group and it seems simply too late to change
> anything about this now as the document(s) are in IETF last call.
Any review - at any stage, for any reason - can bring up issues with the
need for an approach and the utility of the approach provided.

> However, let me provide you some more input as responsible AD and
> previous chair. The TLS-based proposal was not rejected at all. There
> was, however, not enough energy in the group to follow on with that
> approach now, 
I disagree; what I saw were "votes" to pick *a* solution, not multiple
ones. In particular, working on multiple solutions was deemed to
undermine the goal of "we have one that everyone will use".

> so the only option to finish up any time soon was to go with tcpcrypt.
> However, the reason why there is tcpeno, is that this mechanism can
> still be used to negotiate the use of TLS and the hope it that this
> proposal will still be finished at some point of time. I personally
> think that just having a negotiation mechanism in TCP for TLS could
> provide a stronger incentive for adoption but as far as I can tell
> there is currently anyway not a huge interest in deploying tcpinc
> (probably also because QUIC could provide a alternative if you want an
> encrypted transport).
QUIC is basically TLS for UDP: https://www.chromium.org/quic
In fact, the project claims to want to adopt TLS 1.3 in place of its
interim approach.

I don't know if ENO will support anything other than TCPCRYPT; it may be
intended that way, but the jury is out exactly because nobody else is
using it.

> I hope that addresses your concerns at least a bit.
It doesn't.

I was giving my impression as context, but basically encouraging someone
else from TRIAGE to volunteer to give these docs a pass. If that's not
useful, perhaps you should let Martin know he didn't need to ask for that.

Joe

> Thanks for your feedback though! I really appreciate your (and some
> others) efforts to have an eye on what's going on! Honestly thanks!
>
> Mirja
>
>
>
> On 12.10.2017 06:21, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Hi Martin (et al.),
>>
>> I’ve (unfortunately) tracked TCPCRYPT and ENO since their
>> introduction to the IETF. I remain unclear on what problem they’re
>> trying to solve, other than to integrate TLS into the TCP 3WHS (an
>> alternate, more direct approach along those lines by Eric R ?? was
>> rejected, FWIW). It doesn’t protect the TCP layer at all.
>>
>> IMO, both would benefit from at least a cursory pass by fresh eyes,
>> though. Besides, at this point I doubt anything I have to say hasn’t
>> been said (and largely ignored) before.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>> On Oct 11, 2017, at 1:07 AM, Martin Stiemerling <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear TSVers,
>>>
>>> I did work through all documents that are in IETF LC, IESG
>>> processing or being requested for publication as of 10/11, 10:00 am
>>> CEST.
>>>
>>> Please find below all documents checked and what to do with these
>>> documents.
>>>
>>> There are a two documents out of TCPINC that are important and
>>> probably should be reviewed by the TSVART, if not somebody has
>>> already reviewed those as part of the regular TCPINC WG review:
>>> draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-10
>>> draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpcrypt-07
>>>
>>> Any volunteers or did someone out of the TSVART (David probably?)
>>> any read it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Documents that require TSV attention:
>>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework-08 -- Martin
>>> draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-06 -- Jörg (changed, was assigned to Colin)
>>> draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01 -- Michael Tuexen
>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-10 -- Colin, as he did review -09
>>> draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11 -- Yoshifum (AD request
>>> by Mirja)
>>>
>>>
>>> Documents that do not require TSV attention:
>>> draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-06
>>> draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods-09
>>> draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-11
>>> draft-ietf-acme-acme-07
>>> draft-schaad-curdle-oid-registry-02
>>> draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-11 -- TSV owned
>>> draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-02
>>> draft-ietf-uta-email-deep-09
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-19
>>> draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid-07
>>> draft-ietf-anima-voucher-05
>>> draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-05
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>   Martin
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tsv-art mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tsv-art mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
>>