Re: [tsvwg] Suggestions on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-09

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 07 November 2019 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 6A74412093F for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 09:23:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 G9VkDPpkpdc2 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 09:23:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x233.google.com (mail-lj1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4513C12022E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 09:23:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x233.google.com with SMTP id n21so3147020ljg.12 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 09:23:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CLOlNqhcmCbs/AOYIOrYcFXww8utQdo5QOCUSZtS6Ec=; b=G35Li0kCyqCJ/380hmu2sfe5ehh5zth81s8SaDcXc8qhtBpro2JnD+i4qq10bp9XCL F2y7ItHxQewSZ8tWBN8eO0WsYlKo/nd9JTwKa2o318Uz90ovjmpZFG9OWpEG87EeVCXT kjfKE2mTS4LwI9fK6aEMl7dx2SOiPBsqHUafntaowN7P2QqCvOeJt2q2Noy+1BGmhgk1 R+n4hKiCYVrtAjfuuWC+LSBWjGKoTaD+oBjF4/gs+Rz1ZRyNGNH6b44es9J8wctw7++/ G0X/Jti6iskBDMSF+A+TZIdg/bDXdK72GlkjwBet0F97lrPFftSXWvbXFO0+EEJoe2FP dN5Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CLOlNqhcmCbs/AOYIOrYcFXww8utQdo5QOCUSZtS6Ec=; b=VJBxNgUjSDDK5XGY95vbvUQ5W60gmB3vR0wG1u/9Zb8f+nU0xwgme5XEenAG4TOTEc 6HL6KCoSoX05EZC3TMrhljEs6ww2ABcS/fltA/iX8O7+3W9PeyUdfozAM04k0HTFpys3 yudT+0im9OdY4PxeftZdj4UFpy+XHOHD7QHzk1dko4mGlep2uWfO3sbs6nhN8ngDE1oQ E0ACx7KfyuCcEim9+JfjabgI/cxj0VgvL5r/rXJCK5BoTv7x+gCO5FSUmpIOlX/f8cWi Z0Q2c1G8KX1uLq97iSNCO/cXhw3im+s8z1S5jckZ33oANf6hjJdp4kSrzBulO9QjFele Pljg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUXQUygxl+4WfmZ8iKN4dwFl0yMFihV159GQGn0lw1A7IPO7209 KuDa+b4oDC7vphQqqcWSwF1GWWOXAgPAE1hNumGMBw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyD4c09pNAgXyCoTUZY+kM6F1ce3pojuoT+8ftGSrp+gD6GLO+u2ZwbIn7bWz26oL6PwzW4O0QHaX8DtoOrlOA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1196:: with SMTP id w22mr3368777ljo.217.1573147421373; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 09:23:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DA05ACC7-2D5C-476B-97F3-EE95461ACB61@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <DA05ACC7-2D5C-476B-97F3-EE95461ACB61@apple.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 09:23:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMJPoWPrwqxa3c6saWr-Wp4Up1zg82sbFvwyE9+rQ6gtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003b08f50596c4ed5d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/KttfSWhBQ1meCTMneCMzBoSotu8>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Suggestions on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-09
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:23:46 -0000

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:09 AM Tommy Pauly <tpauly=
40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> As has been pointed out already, much of the operational considerations
> are already described by RFC 8404. Some of the discussion of these
> operational considerations in the TSV document could be reduced to point to
> that RFC, rather than needing to reiterate.
>
> It may be good to, as a community, re-look at the conclusions section as
> the place to rework the tone. The choice it presents at the end is, as far
> as I can tell, the main concern that is being highlighted: that there
> should be some choice between encrypting transport headers and not
> encrypting them, depending on what you want the network to be able to do.
> Practically, I don't see that being the choice before protocol designers.
> What we see in the case of the Spin Bit in QUIC is that we are adding new
> mechanisms that are explicit signals, which are arguably outside of the
> domain of the original notion of transport headers, since the endpoints
> themselves consume an encrypted form of the information that acts as their
> true authority at the transport layer. The document brings up IOAM
> signaling and other mechanisms for measurement, which are also explicit
> signaling outside of the transport. This seems to be the more obvious
> conclusion. Of course, clients may not opt into these measurement
> mechanisms, but that is the choice and evolution that needs to play out.
> Perhaps the conclusion could lay out something similar to this logic:
> - Transport headers are being encrypted, because it has become necessary
> to preserve privacy and allow for the evolution of transport protocols
> - Signals that middleboxes passively read will not be available anymore,
> which makes certain functionality harder
> - If clients want to get the functionality that middleboxes provide while
> using encrypted transports, they will need to come up with explicit
> signaling mechanisms
>

Isn't this point already well reflected in RFC 8558?

-Ekr

Tommy
>
> -----
>
> Also, two typos in the document:
>
> Section 1:
>
> .... nis a technical ...
>
> Should be:
>
> .... is a technical ...
>
> Section 2.3:
>
> .... regulators to explore teh ...
>
> Should be:
>
> .... regulators to explore the ...
>
>