Re: [tsvwg] [saag] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, -> logging

Gorry Fairhurst <> Sat, 12 October 2019 07:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F02B0120072 for <>; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 00:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id brytEE0foN8Z for <>; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 00:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F306C12004C for <>; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 00:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Gs-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 594881B00111; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 08:48:56 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 08:48:55 +0100
From: Gorry Fairhurst <>
Organization: University of Aberdeen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christian Huitema <>
CC: "Black, David" <>, "" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [saag] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, -> logging
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: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 07:49:04 -0000

I'm intrigued by how far we can understand opportunities for open client 
logs to replace pcap dumps, and would like to delve a little deeper into 
what we understand - there seem many possible actors and that may be 
interesting to look at a few viewpoints:

* a user of a transport protocol (e.g., understanding cost/benefit of 
feature choices);
* a protocol developer (e.g.,  debugging transport interactions end to end);
* a service provider (e.g., trying to understand performance impairments 
in the network);
* researchers/equipment developers seeking to correlate/tune transport 
timing with network policies (e.g., interactions between congestion 
control and link scheduling);
* exploring traffic archives (e.g., trends in what is supported or 
determine when an anomoly appeared).

I've taken all of these viewpoints at some time using pcap to look at TCP.

Clearly when we use QUIC, there can be alternatives and there is now 
some experience with client (and server) logs, what do you think we can 
usefully say in addition to or instead of what the draft says about 
logging (currently mentioned only briefly in section 6.1) ?

The text on spin-bit could indeed be developed a little (the present 
text predates the spin bit being incorporated as an optional part of the 
base spec). What do you think should be said (currently at the end of 6.4)?


On 09/10/2019, 15:32, Christian Huitema wrote:
> As the draft mentions:
>     The use of transport layer authentication and encryption exposes a
>     tussle between middlebox vendors, operators, applications developers
>     and users
> Much of the draft reads like a lamentation of the horrible 
> consequences of encrypting transport headers, which looks very much 
> like embracing the point of view of the middlebox vendors. Expressing 
> that point of view is of course fine, and it might be enough to change 
> the title, abstract and introduction to reflect that this is an 
> opinion piece. But as a transport working group document I would like 
> something a bit more balanced. It should spend more time acknowledging 
> the ossification and privacy issues. It should ideally lay the ground 
> work for alternative management solutions, such as controlled exposure 
> like the spin bit in QUIC, IP header information, or standardized logs 
> like the QLOG effort.
> -- Christian Huitema
> On 10/8/2019 2:08 PM, Black, David wrote:
>> FYI – some OPS area and SEC area eyes on this TSVWG draft now (during 
>> WGLC) would be a good thing ;-).
>> Thanks, --David (TSVWG co-chair)
>> *From:* Black, David <>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 8, 2019 5:06 PM
>> *To:*
>> *Cc:* Black, David
>> *Subject:* WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 
>> October 2019
>> This email announces a TSVWG Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on:
>> The Impact of Transport Header Confidentiality on Network Operation and
>>                        Evolution of the Internet
>>                  draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08
>> This draft is intended to become an Informational RFC.
>> This WGLC will run through the end of the day on Wednesday, October 23.
>> That should allow time before the Singapore draft submission cutoff for
>> the authors to revise the draft with any changes that result from WGLC.
>> Comments should be sent to the <> 
>> list, although purely
>> editorial comments may be sent directly to the authors. Please cc: the
>> WG chairs at <>  if 
>> you would like the chairs to
>> track such editorial comments as part of the WGLC process.
>> No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on this draft.
>> Thanks,
>> David, Gorry and Wes
>> (TSVWG Co-Chairs)
>> _______________________________________________
>> saag mailing list