Re: [tsvwg] Comment on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-05

G Fairhurst <> Tue, 26 March 2019 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0301C120334 for <>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 07:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id am7VoLuSjqUH for <>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 07:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 334CF120314 for <>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 07:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:a431:ef26:eb4e:53c1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 741121B0022D for <>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:20:11 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:20:14 +0100
From: G Fairhurst <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Comment on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:20:45 -0000

This is the section we said we do plan to edit...

On 25/03/2019, 17:02, Tom Herbert wrote:
> > From the draft, last paragraph of section 7:
> "The direction in which this evolves could have significant
> implications on the way the Internet architecture develops. It exposes
> a risk that significant actors (e.g., developers and transport
> designers) achieve more control of the way in which the Internet
> architecture develops. ..."
> I think this paragraph is very subjective and provides little basis
> for its conclusions.
I think the text can be improved, to explain that a "risk" is only a 
possibility that something could happen, but I still maintain that this 
describes a potential side effect. Maybe a separate para would more 
clearly highlight this.
> The statement that "signifcant actors achieve
> more control" over Internet architecture, with explicit mention of
> developers and transport designers, seems provocative.
I think it's a possibility.
> It's also
> ironic considering these this is a discussion about the transport
> layer and per the Internet architecture the transport layer is E2E and
> supposed to be transparent to the network.
I agree the *service* provided by transport is end to end.

In many cases, transport protocol concerns often centre about end-to-end 
communication across the path - how the path attributes are discovered 
by the transport endpoints, how transport endpoints influence 
scheduling, forwarding, etc and the impact of the (usually shared) path 
on the packets that travel along the path. So not really ironic, and not 
> I suggest that this paragraph could be simply removed without loss of
> content in the draft.
> Tom

Gorry (simply an individual comment)