Re: [tsvwg] Comment on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-13

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

On 24/03/2020 08:06, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> David,
>
> don’t know, where this is heading to. Two observations, shared earlier 
> on this list:
>
>   * I’ve distributed a link to a publication where Google gives advice
>     to operators how to optimize access policer configuration. This
>     optimization requires transport layer performance information.
>   * One result of encryption that I’m aware of are measurement
>     applications residing in dedicated and consumer terminals,
>     reporting results back to central servers. Reporting transport
>     performance is one aspect.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ruediger
>
Thanks Ruediger, I found this is helpful - I suspect as we gain more 
experience about what works well and what does not work so well, TSVWG 
will be able to write another document that identifies way(s) forward, 
and this sort of thing is what we should focus on next.

Gorry

> *Von:*tsvwg <[e-mail]> *Im Auftrag von *Black, David
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 23. März 2020 23:20
> *An:* Joseph Touch <[e-mail]>; Tom Herbert 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* tsvwg <[e-mail]>
> *Betreff:* Re: [tsvwg] Comment on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-13
>
> [writing as draft shepherd]
>
> Point taken – would it be reasonable to rework that paragraph to 
> observe that there should be incentives for endpoints to expose 
> transport information, e.g., otherwise implementers may simply not bother?
>
> Thanks, --David
>
> *From:* tsvwg <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 
> *On Behalf Of *Joseph Touch
> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2020 11:20 AM
> *To:* Tom Herbert
> *Cc:* tsvwg
> *Subject:* Re: [tsvwg] Comment on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-13
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
>     On Mar 23, 2020, at 7:58 AM, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Fundamentally, transport layer is end-to-end information. There is no
>     contract between end hosts and the network that hosts have to be
>     honest or correct in setting information in the transport layer-- the
>     only contract is between the endpoints.
>
> +1
>
> Another point worth mentioning:
>
> - if endpoints can lie or mislead about transport info to get their 
> way, they can, will, and IMO *SHOULD*.
>
> That goes for using port 53 for nearly anything anyone wants to. 
> Transport info isn’t there to make things nice for network operators - 
> that’s what the network layer is for.
>
> Oh, yeah, I know - network operators don’t want “heavy” stuff in 
> *their* headers because it slows them down when they don’t want it. 
> Too bad, IMO. If they want the info, they need to deal with the pain.
>
> Joe
>