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

[Joseph Touch <[e-mail]>]

> On Feb 28, 2020, at 6:17 PM, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 6:03 PM Joseph Touch <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2020, at 12:30 PM, Tom Herbert <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > 
> > While the draft certainly has improved both in tone and content, I
> > still feel like there is one area that is very under-represented.
> > Namely the possibility of using extension headers to carry necessary
> > transport information that the network needs. I have brought this up
> > several times, and don't believe it has been adequately addressed.
> 
> Tom, 
> 
> I thought the draft explains (IMO correctly) that the transport layer can make info available to the network layer, but that’s how it works. We shouldn’t expect that the transport header itself is available (for security and privacy reasons).
> 
> Joe,
> 
> If I understand the draft correctly, it is describing a number of use cases where intermediate nodes are extracting information directly from transport headers. When transport layer header is encrypted that ability is lost and the network can't use transport layer information to the benefit of the user. The idea of putting the necessary information elsewhere in the packet in cleartext is what HBH could provide.

Certainly - but the HBH header would be at the network layer, not transport, right? (I got the impression you were hinting at a cleartext part of the transport header for this purpose)

Joe