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

S Moonesamy <> Wed, 06 November 2019 09:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F5E120811 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 01:54:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ueumvZNcYdVV for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 01:54:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25023120810 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 01:54:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id xA69sLUp002184 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Nov 2019 01:54:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1573034074; x=1573120474;; bh=Yo6EqeITdOPFgA9Ke5kL1Kb5m10zMAsFqrsGQsxScRs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=j4pSlMeo7EL4poXHw3yMzG85TgV2joGjDlCoZDD4op4RtAfJ/C2JuxbEPzEt/jkwL iy59E/bwIvBmFvSMo+eP292Qw5c5pecG4sEhXTCGm5jNmiEkpDRm/8DnWB11MG/DB4 qVgSx2RpXytCoL+mJ0fvAmVJIJaYIxJIyUkJWI6Y=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 01:51:13 -0800
To: Colin Perkins <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <4460_1571933453_5DB1CD0D_4460_57_4_5AE9CCAA1B4A2248AB61B4C7F0AD5FB931F030A0@OPEXCAUBM44.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [OPSAWG] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 09:54:48 -0000

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.

S. Moonesamy