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

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. 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.

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, 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).

I hope that addresses your concerns at least a bit. 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 <mls.ietf@gmail.com> 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
>> Tsv-art@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tsv-art mailing list
> Tsv-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
> 