Re: [tsvwg] [saag] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, -> logging

On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 12:49 AM Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> I'm intrigued by how far we can understand opportunities for open client
> logs to replace pcap dumps, and would like to delve a little deeper into
> what we understand - there seem many possible actors and that may be
> interesting to look at a few viewpoints:
>
> * a user of a transport protocol (e.g., understanding cost/benefit of
> feature choices);
> * a protocol developer (e.g.,  debugging transport interactions end to end);
> * a service provider (e.g., trying to understand performance impairments
> in the network);
> * researchers/equipment developers seeking to correlate/tune transport
> timing with network policies (e.g., interactions between congestion
> control and link scheduling);
> * exploring traffic archives (e.g., trends in what is supported or
> determine when an anomoly appeared).
>
For this to be a complete list the viewpoints of potentially
malevolent actors also needs to be considered.

> I've taken all of these viewpoints at some time using pcap to look at TCP.
>
> Clearly when we use QUIC, there can be alternatives and there is now
> some experience with client (and server) logs, what do you think we can
> usefully say in addition to or instead of what the draft says about
> logging (currently mentioned only briefly in section 6.1) ?
>
> The text on spin-bit could indeed be developed a little (the present
> text predates the spin bit being incorporated as an optional part of the
> base spec). What do you think should be said (currently at the end of 6.4)?
>
> Gorry
>
>
> On 09/10/2019, 15:32, Christian Huitema wrote:
> >
> > As the draft mentions:
> >
> >     The use of transport layer authentication and encryption exposes a
> >     tussle between middlebox vendors, operators, applications developers
> >     and users
> >
> > Much of the draft reads like a lamentation of the horrible
> > consequences of encrypting transport headers, which looks very much
> > like embracing the point of view of the middlebox vendors. Expressing
> > that point of view is of course fine, and it might be enough to change
> > the title, abstract and introduction to reflect that this is an
> > opinion piece. But as a transport working group document I would like
> > something a bit more balanced. It should spend more time acknowledging
> > the ossification and privacy issues. It should ideally lay the ground
> > work for alternative management solutions, such as controlled exposure
> > like the spin bit in QUIC, IP header information, or standardized logs
> > like the QLOG effort.
> >
> > -- Christian Huitema
> >
> >
> > On 10/8/2019 2:08 PM, Black, David wrote:
> >>
> >> FYI – some OPS area and SEC area eyes on this TSVWG draft now (during
> >> WGLC) would be a good thing ;-).
> >>
> >> Thanks, --David (TSVWG co-chair)
> >>
> >> *From:* Black, David <david.black@emc.com>
> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 8, 2019 5:06 PM
> >> *To:* tsvwg@ietf.org
> >> *Cc:* Black, David
> >> *Subject:* WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23
> >> October 2019
> >>
> >> This email announces a TSVWG Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on:
> >>
> >> The Impact of Transport Header Confidentiality on Network Operation and
> >>
> >>                        Evolution of the Internet
> >>
> >>                  draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08
> >>
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt/
> >>
> >> This draft is intended to become an Informational RFC.
> >>
> >> This WGLC will run through the end of the day on Wednesday, October 23.
> >>
> >> That should allow time before the Singapore draft submission cutoff for
> >>
> >> the authors to revise the draft with any changes that result from WGLC.
> >>
> >> Comments should be sent to the tsvwg@ietf.org <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
> >> list, although purely
> >>
> >> editorial comments may be sent directly to the authors. Please cc: the
> >>
> >> WG chairs at tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>  if
> >> you would like the chairs to
> >>
> >> track such editorial comments as part of the WGLC process.
> >>
> >> No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on this draft.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> David, Gorry and Wes
> >>
> >> (TSVWG Co-Chairs)
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> saag mailing list
> >> saag@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>