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

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Sat, 29 February 2020 02:05 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D153A0921 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:05:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 Kp8YfndMqLvS for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:05:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A0783A090B for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:05:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=+2i3Zwi04t3f8EldR1/ncL4SDcESRHUNcvIMu6E/qys=; b=7QYsSki7ZBljKWZh5VhyYeVru WcxuCUvzeG2WQj6sLlcstg+HLSfvx6w8wjeDWZ3e+1jcvlFhycwWG3z7volSlD/qiXalRi+i25bUK 5Jo6NYlP48Zzx7NkNok5QePXB/wrHSuKuqx0zyHi06/8IaWRoK4jfg0gDaZWOVVsfiLin3vJl4rRm qW9fSSWWVZhZzRftBeR1H3yCOVAmq5dpTyHkPmEiDk8CYL5ibkwsyOR5ObeOoRjP0k/yCBYisyJj1 L8VKzUK8KY7IbWeNWUBRuw5VdQ0ukzfo0ioDHk5AW6m6/DmKLFgUUvVXRAECOS+uuAO1KrimMhCTu VKVmKa3AQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:59525 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1j7rV1-000yoX-OM; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 21:05:08 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1AE5AD55-3CFF-43C0-94E6-0336367AFB9B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMGpriXDBWxwEXCwqPXX+QPhtQ0Z5NeVMEiEEQRjudR3ZZXW6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:05:02 -0800
Cc: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <959978F5-6322-4409-A179-83049504D0EB@strayalpha.com>
References: <CALx6S37iBDc7KxOL60=HC_QkWH06-5MU2rqrK=w+mqiKkSdc0w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-cznw56bimFtqt5Z1Wg_vOKy=id-uD5BWurHDYSQzuPRw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriXDBWxwEXCwqPXX+QPhtQ0Z5NeVMEiEEQRjudR3ZZXW6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/86GYTjhjsCBeU_cCTLtqmo2wJ-o>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Comment on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 02:05:10 -0000


> On Feb 28, 2020, at 4:10 PM, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> It also seems possible that some UDP options (https://tools.ietf..org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options>) might come along that could help things like QUIC effectively have a path-modifiable portion that (a) isn't a HbH extension header and (b) isn't covered by something cryptographic that would break if it were modified in-flight.

No; that header is not intended to be modified on-path (it can be authenticated, in particular).

On-path mods should happen at the IP layer. The transport layer should be seeing only the transport endpoints, not routers.

Joe