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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 6:23 PM Joseph Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> 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]> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 28, 2020, at 12:30 PM, Tom Herbert <[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)
>

Right, that's a proposal for sender to explicitly put transport related
information in network layer for consumption by the network. I think the
draft advocates that transport designers consider selectively not
encrypting fields in transport header for benefit of network.

Tom

>
> Joe
>
>