Re: [tsvwg] New Version of draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt (12)

Eric Rescorla <> Mon, 16 March 2020 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34413A07B1 for <>; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 06:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hEqLL3Gusxv0 for <>; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 06:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3ADB33A080A for <>; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 06:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s13so18554245ljm.1 for <>; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 06:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vn1w34sY24M88P3fcUpj3yaDC1SJAWiyKX+qvNBiqmk=; b=GmZ62KIMoUJ0JxKkDIPZTw010hguYM/lA5k3TvELDuDJwuj75AEt8aPj6XTg02VevX NjDalF2odzS6GmWqa4pjDzm2WID1KEiwdsGsnj2f6k9KaiWAUsDVKdGOtlGTgoEoL+Ho i7EedxHuUE9d9jM6NJyRczv6ve76gYGRVxzwQq3Pq9P1RvWHcBgih35A8CToa3KkgwbH 1I2PCV+fmjAZoYC715FcIRHo6Dl5Q4oclya9xVpM7vk0EVgEpCGaAJ/g7h7h9ZNLCNd0 u6xNdSP5ANov9/ruliYTw6+iUl/e5rstRib9Y/Juwu1CiBmduuUj6Sndto6+TceGXqgW SVtw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vn1w34sY24M88P3fcUpj3yaDC1SJAWiyKX+qvNBiqmk=; b=T1ZrSr06Jbn5bnDoh/Nql5caQKXe77NexVhwzTVCfrQwtVGk5/rrkN1C+RvWMkaqgx KZRwO5cMNH3b388o8sne2/wr/EHKxjD28YKSKw99K7tT269FFWLFbX6C18Sa9YJw9qXo 0WWdVTZSuRzgtnRnb7SxyRUY/5+fvYfwKyaTdtWnedVBEYMuXkjuhdy6BTAHboGYEyMn b6fHd0mhz/ALk5QQZNadtX6JwORemKqVJ8Co+mHACZe6BHC5gl09C4q7cB7EdhY3gH7K JacIWZYzHmWRShbbOmDq2gf17nEg85v0QXmlT8/bcJMiij4sIvoHswXehPP+b2RldrWg r8kA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0JrW6KuziiSnUK/PDwCxweftJ067h99Ub3BJkJSVw+2M+6LuKg mz3Ib0jd2kFYvTetfEfM02X1TdMa8EsyyitJzvc0iXEqYCzt+w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtIWR48+c76wmHsYtydeIR94y1LnJMLecX72lm9deNQrDLRXlA0jreNxlIIrTtM2Rn9IloLoeOh2h4oUDsAAkE=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:81cc:: with SMTP id s12mr15127386ljg.35.1584364047863; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 06:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 06:06:51 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <>
Cc: Martin Duke <>, David Schinazi <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000044a27705a0f88084"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] New Version of draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt (12)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 13:07:43 -0000

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 2:36 AM Gorry Fairhurst <>

> Ekr,
> On 15/03/2020 13:19, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Let me try to expand my point a bit.
> Longstanding practice is for entities in the middle of the network to
> use signals that were intended for the endpoint for their own
> purposes.  With QUIC (and a lesser extent SCTP/DTLS), those signals
> are being encrypted and thus unavailable to those non-endpoint
> entities; this draft is mostly devoted to documenting the negative
> impact of that change on the operations of those entities.
> I disagree that this is "documenting the negative impact of that change".
> The draft is about how this protocol information has and is being used. As
> long as I can remember, there has been devices that utilise some of this
> information, at the edge of an enterprise there is often at least one
> device with this role; within a managed network there are devices; etc. If
> the trend to use encrypted methods continues, some of these practices need
> to be re-assessed, and the functions more widely understood than in an era
> when nearly everything was thought to be TCP or "multimedia".

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. What I said above is that
this draft was "mostly devoted to documenting the negative
impact of that change on the operations of those entities."
In other words, it lists a bunch of things that people do now
that will stop working. Do you not think that much of the
material in this draft is of that form?