Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-14

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Sun, 05 April 2020 22:50 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 849533A045B for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 15:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
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 pz1bjQQaCEOY for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 15:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
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 141663A044F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 15:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
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=Y63lxThG7LxRRhhNePjC3fHQvgE6D56fsyjvdz7t70c=; b=yi6fZw9+sTgQHkInIgsx78tEr YyrnWsLtf/W7JoSVlx0aT+CALdeQ7DfDSWJPo8xe28cUC4obaYr8lI/N6l8RXrtsmXOYVWeqw/Fg/ yb6ZhjKHKH7y6WhhJ1NbTq7FYSyJXaRpM0jPlWFA0Huyo0CZKG98uPRRfFnS7KvxgYrWf5eJESLgI pilB10LTc7ZIoF8fyWa9xZAQbHfzv3xYGVgdOO7IFfy3JqZrHfCxupJqgsPLiIGB4qeCQzshhaeYX tylXAPjxn3cqa57PV1HoJHajF+4sjXDCseqEdYH0p+Ok7hrqjpDJvm6OFv49a4Jz9FYuvI4169dIK qXRNSB8Lw==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:50737 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1jLE6K-001ogI-Pe; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 18:50:53 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6C969C04-585A-4CF8-9640-2D21950606E8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.5\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR19MB404585DB4796DD1EF29FDF0C83C50@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 15:50:46 -0700
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <6CC67993-37FF-4B02-A45A-4F30E9D6686C@strayalpha.com>
References: <CALx6S345Ta5LjSkZ+XmNmH8dxKnM++VRCej2iGxfdUqDc+M-Jw@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR19MB4045652C80DB5348A5A3505F83C70@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <CALx6S36yzDTLaxUhWibZjmK5Cxu2zfzxiawFRCbVn9aPF4rs1A@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR19MB4045E873D0908044343F8C2283C40@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <42914e6a-5602-7911-7447-e400d36eb0e6@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <MN2PR19MB404585DB4796DD1EF29FDF0C83C50@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.5)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5
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/KPLczyFv93zOLUkGbUfOscDuFHo>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-14
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, 05 Apr 2020 22:50:57 -0000


> On Apr 5, 2020, at 3:32 PM, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> wrote:
> 
> The text on ports is in Section 3.1.1 of the draft - it makes a lot of sense to refer to it rather than cover the same territory again, so mea culpa for overlooking that text.  Also, in 20/20 hindsight, “more effort” was not the right word choice to convey “more involved” or “more complex” – besides, it’s better to simply point out that the transport protocol has to be identified in order to use its headers.
>  
> ...
> OLD
>    UDP-based protocols often do not use well-known port numbers.  
> NEW
>    UDP-based protocols often do not use well-known port numbers,
>    and use of a well-known port number is not limited to the
>    protocol for which the port is well known [RFC7605].

RFC7605 doesn’t say this, or at least most of this.

Yes, there’s no rule that well-known port numbers are used. But that’s not either unique to nor biased towards UDP vs TCP.

Joe