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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 06 November 2019 09:54 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F5E120811 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 01:54:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ueumvZNcYdVV for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 01:54:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25023120810 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 01:54:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.34.136]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (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; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1573034074; x=1573120474; i=@elandsys.com; 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: <6.2.5.6.2.20191106013850.0bd9dce0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 01:51:13 -0800
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, tsvwg@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <ADBD845C-AE34-4B30-816F-BA4D2A9240EF@csperkins.org>
References: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493630766752@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <4460_1571933453_5DB1CD0D_4460_57_4_5AE9CCAA1B4A2248AB61B4C7F0AD5FB931F030A0@OPEXCAUBM44.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <1572918247420.10381@cs.auckland.ac.nz> <CABcZeBPy_39o37snzy8F6iyLQMg1aGkYbhy0A1N-PxFUmAmB0g@mail.gmail.com> <f2b1f803-b559-a166-8009-baff551bec5c@joelhalpern.com> <7E9CB639-6CAD-4152-8927-86EC44DF5B9A@strayalpha.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20191105235624.0c9ca628@elandnews.com> <ADBD845C-AE34-4B30-816F-BA4D2A9240EF@csperkins.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/PCLHWcRZRcaa29NmNMGSZ2TcNuc>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [OPSAWG] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=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.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy