Re: [tsvwg] [OPSAWG] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Colin,
At 12:52 AM 06-11-2019, Colin Perkins wrote:
>This draft is discussing some of the issues that go into finding 
>such an appropriate balance when considering transport protocol 
>design. It does not say do not encrypt transport headers; it does 
>say to consider certain issues and make an informed choice what 
>parts of the transport headers should be encrypted and what should 
>be exposed. There is a trade-off in protocol design. As the QUIC 
>spin bit and ossification discussions show, there are reasons to 
>expose certain header information and ways of doing so that preserve 
>user privacy and protocol extensibility. This draft is encouraging 
>that discussion, not pre-judging its outcome.

I would like to thank you for the above-mentioned clarifications.  I 
agree that it is better to encourage the discussion (re. finding an 
appropriate balance) instead of pre-judging the outcome.  I doubt 
that can be done if there isn't a document to discuss.  As such, I 
would look at this draft as a positive step.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy