Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-14

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 07 April 2020 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 DBA973A0D4D for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 08:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 7Q7YYX1sQdsZ for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 08:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 597893A0D2F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 08:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=I88OLUEDQdWC1z+bFEBrXL8yYts6kJC/8G8U9zo+ffU=; b=d5ypN4GPQnm5bPbfBujVI34zl V96gPGsMZ1Ka+m/98mFXiBkVrt7tzenjt9TnOsdO1nhxa8M21vGmLLS5hyesN7bWiKj3SL2mPfCf/ CuVYnSUJp0hVH1VrXRQGdpwbv6cPtJNPIIFS4wuxoluDcdZAKDZpjwoEmr70cck4VgRTZ5jCKNjxt T7ihx7b0CGAN/W2UZEo542clW+NgNw3wavaMvYycBYqqdJxm/Y7MEz+9JYgPg2ZrI+ltqzQo4w41M zT6Ic+CykCHvI9OE+ydnStU3v3mOJG6uJDBvGpwf675CdaL8Ufx4Nc0vd1gIjL16k48kM6f6+VTBI akq2TVISw==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:55865 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1jLptL-004DDD-5z; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 11:11:59 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.5\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S36_HGekVYSBTiP-=uDigk+nzf2Yw2AtqopPrK5Y1gozgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 08:11:54 -0700
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2856BD08-BFCD-476D-AD1E-FE1EA94C92C7@strayalpha.com>
References: <CALx6S345Ta5LjSkZ+XmNmH8dxKnM++VRCej2iGxfdUqDc+M-Jw@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR19MB4045652C80DB5348A5A3505F83C70@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <CALx6S36yzDTLaxUhWibZjmK5Cxu2zfzxiawFRCbVn9aPF4rs1A@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR19MB4045E873D0908044343F8C2283C40@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <42914e6a-5602-7911-7447-e400d36eb0e6@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <MN2PR19MB404585DB4796DD1EF29FDF0C83C50@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <6CC67993-37FF-4B02-A45A-4F30E9D6686C@strayalpha.com> <fc94ff59-4972-3960-7c25-85f8953463f9@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <62B8E2A9-2347-44E2-8B14-DD3CD81937AB@strayalpha.com> <737cf948-065b-0702-ca15-6cc216d73bc9@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <10E067D5-0C17-400B-BA7F-3CB49C2C94B6@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S36_HGekVYSBTiP-=uDigk+nzf2Yw2AtqopPrK5Y1gozgQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.5)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Pe6jOBIDA_hL4fFEmD6og_t3EvU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-14
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: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 15:12:23 -0000

Hi, Tom,

> On Apr 7, 2020, at 7:40 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:42 PM Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi, Gorry,
>> 
>> I’d suggest as follows (just to follow through on the changes):
>> 
>> 
>> In some uses, an assigned transport port (e.g., 0..49151) can identify the protocol [RFC7605]. However, port information alone is not sufficient to guarantee identification. Applications can use arbitrary ports and do not need to use assigned port numbers. The use of an assigned port number is also not limited to the protocol for which the port is intended.
> 
> Joe,
> 
> RFC7605 acknowledges that port numbers are used to identify the
> application protocol, but clearly doesn't condone the practice. I
> suggest the text should just paraphrase RFC7605:’

I don’t quite understand the above, esp. the use of “condone”. Port numbers are assigned *exactly* for endpoints to identify application protocols *in the absence of any other more explicit coordination* (the draft doesn’t say it so directly, but that’s the summary). 

That said, I was OK with the resolved text I had suggested, with or without the text below - which is also fine.

Joe

> 
> "Port numbers are sometimes used by intermediate devices on a network
> path to interpret transport protocol payload, however any
> interpretation of port numbers -- except at the endpoints -- may be
> incorrect, because port numbers are
> meaningful only at the endpoints [RFC7605]."
> 
> Tom
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Joe
>