Re: [tsvwg] [ippm] [OPSAWG] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Sun, 24 November 2019 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <acm@research.att.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 6B1521200B3; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 04:52:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 wQ66iKY9Xi9z; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 04:52:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (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 E456D120137; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 04:52:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049463.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xAOCZAbU014999; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 07:52:23 -0500
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2wf219pdhm-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 24 Nov 2019 07:52:22 -0500
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xAOCqLuW031242; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 06:52:21 -0600
Received: from zlp30494.vci.att.com (zlp30494.vci.att.com [135.46.181.159]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xAOCqFRF031135 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 24 Nov 2019 06:52:15 -0600
Received: from zlp30494.vci.att.com (zlp30494.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30494.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 3A2EE4009E7D; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 12:52:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (unknown [135.41.1.46]) by zlp30494.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 1452B4009E71; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 12:52:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xAOCqEbV011077; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 06:52:14 -0600
Received: from mail-azure.research.att.com (mail-azure.research.att.com [135.207.255.18]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xAOCq4FO010213; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 06:52:05 -0600
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njbdcas1.research.att.com [135.197.255.61]) by mail-azure.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24548E12A2; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 07:50:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njbdcas1.research.att.com ([fe80::8c6b:4b77:618f:9a01%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 07:52:03 -0500
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: Ian Swett <ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
CC: "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org)" <ippm@ietf.org>, Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>, tsvwg-chairs <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] [OPSAWG] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019
Thread-Index: AQHVk8OXusCW74gvz0mDwZDg62wUHaeZ/saAgABcwdA=
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 12:52:03 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA6F001FB@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
References: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493630766752@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <4460_1571933453_5DB1CD0D_4460_57_4_5AE9CCAA1B4A2248AB61B4C7F0AD5FB931F030A0@OPEXCAUBM44.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <1572918247420.10381@cs.auckland.ac.nz> <CABcZeBPy_39o37snzy8F6iyLQMg1aGkYbhy0A1N-PxFUmAmB0g@mail.gmail.com> <f2b1f803-b559-a166-8009-baff551bec5c@joelhalpern.com> <5df30dd2-6841-7140-43bf-8c1b9603653f@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CAKcm_gM33z6njR1U5f8Lh3=cMzEnQQVWLVYui9zHHqz0kPc2Nw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKcm_gM33z6njR1U5f8Lh3=cMzEnQQVWLVYui9zHHqz0kPc2Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [69.141.203.172]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA6F001FBnjmtexg5researc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,18.0.572 definitions=2019-11-23_06:2019-11-21,2019-11-23 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-1911240126
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/I8BuK_xPfrJeEL3CdCImsf7MvhU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [ippm] [OPSAWG] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019
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: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 12:52:44 -0000

Hi Ian, Gorry and Colin,

please see a few hard-earned comments below, marked [acm],

Al

From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Swett
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2019 8:48 PM
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Cc: quic@ietf.org; tsvwg@ietf.org; IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org) <ippm@ietf.org>rg>; Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>nz>; tsvwg-chairs <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>rg>; opsawg@ietf.org; Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>; saag@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] [OPSAWG] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019

I think it's ok to publish a document with the stated goals, but I think this needs to be done with great care and the current document implies some value judgements and implications I don't think are fully justified by the document.  A 3rd author with a slightly different perspective may help achieve the right balance.
[acm]
It’s a difficult but worthwhile thing to achieve NPOV on a controversial topic.

IMO, this can be approached by asking all commenters to provide text for the memo
on the topic of interest, which will reveal their value judgements and opinions
for the reviewing community. Editing proceeds by taking many POV into account,
in the form of text contributions revised many times, not opinion only.

<snip lots of previous messages>
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 5:44 PM Peter Gutmann
>> <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz<mailto:pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz> <mailto:pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz<mailto:pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>>> wrote:
>>
>>     I actually think it's a pretty good summary, and delivers exactly
>> what's
>>     promised in the title.  OTOH I can also see that it's going to get
>>     bikeshedded
>>     to death, and will probably never be editable into a form where
>>     people won't
>>     complain about it no matter how many changes are made.
>> Alternatively, it'll
>>     end up watered down to a point where no-one can complain any more
>>     but it won't
>>     say anything terribly useful by then.
>>
>>     Perhaps it could be published as is with a comment that it
>>     represents the
>>     opinions of the authors?  Although given that it's Informational
>> and not
>>     Standards-track or a BCP, that should be a given anyway.
>>
>>
>> Actually, no. Most IETF documents, even informational ones, bear a
>> statement that they have IETF Consensus.
>>
>> See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5741#section-3.2.1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc5741-23section-2D3.2.1&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=T5LgsMBzFOs4KRdiWIxX5pZQ7xbWAXguLkH3gX1DSrg&s=eHy4w8lVF3_5RVNdiWQacTXxIH9Qu1CQ0UQ6bD7yR0M&e=>
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5741#section-3..2.1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc5741-23section-2D3..2.1&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=T5LgsMBzFOs4KRdiWIxX5pZQ7xbWAXguLkH3gX1DSrg&s=2njzfTabCITEFOP4yCl2iIYxUCu0gutlNauGYi81O9A&e=>>
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>>     Peter.
[acm] Actually, this is the relevant classification:

4.2.2 Informational

An "Informational" specification is published for the general information of the Internet community, and does not represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation.
From https://ietf.org/standards/process/informational-vs-experimental/
Choosing between Informational and Experimental Status
This document reproduces the rules for classifying documents as Informational and Experimental from RFC 2026, and amplifies those rules with guidelines relevant to ongoing IESG evaluations. It is not intended to change any of the underlying principles.
and it’s a déjà vu moment for me.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSAWG mailing list
>> OPSAWG@ietf.org<mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_opsawg&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=T5LgsMBzFOs4KRdiWIxX5pZQ7xbWAXguLkH3gX1DSrg&s=LFPzdVpELMweE5JzhSlf-MCi-1_TfUGwvjXeSB1OT84&e=>
>>