Re: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020

Roni Even <> Thu, 18 June 2020 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A9C3A0AB7; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ovt8dcZqUdhF; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2A683A0A8F; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b6so6929639wrs.11; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-language:thread-index; bh=nAgxOp69E3l7GJqyAgdLA3y5TL7TQov7S35j8sgtDmA=; b=qX8efVLGkj0SDUW8WCgEX2TMWfRdT0JKJKSscJayq2mjNVKIdl2Wzow1cUHyAogIhw m8p5w4inM3bxb9bfM+ncQFEr2vSg9PkgzuRY2JD6XzF73HtEVbfIH97G233CXo9v8Rrn 9qT9cSgcpk1qXI5M43edW14bG2cK0vyvo26JiRerj/V/Hbbx6iR1HQ/thJmvIM7nHGar 49Lv57tr3+FvQ0m8HmTgOHr4ic2RTLD95O8Q23RPCxgd+gwyugMFH2DDlP1QLv+vCPIo ungI8B+/Kb6xFPa77pn1XXPSIsPCNmTNBo1HrddwnyJpP0iyERLHPq8DgZGd9n95SFBr N8Vw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-language:thread-index; bh=nAgxOp69E3l7GJqyAgdLA3y5TL7TQov7S35j8sgtDmA=; b=E7d3tWI2G197mv+eqVmLM/cvUxrr9fUfGgqJK4R+N954gCzJe0Zb3NxGzG0cFuEA/h 7fukvY6Wuew925tQnfzUyylGRy7Z29N1uykMi4ernnIbdwd1vCX1eUhh8hUz1U/WjQ1L 8fBQSJIhloZnI1EHpU4q7JcTd1kJXMhIOcIUR7R0ohEgv3xu1bqoOPLHtxLr3+xjr+7w WN8HBSoopgFM5bLivuirDp21DfwbVjjlzP/tSNwaj+SxpgTUi1MD/ABoHF+ENy+jp0T1 AY04l/4lvMXlFAKq68m7ia2AiesVN/T272WebaK8mKrWvm4OnqTAGxJh/2rF4nK2Wogv FaZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530fKhsTild1xEEhpS0gz6nuQhsy4hZdE9wrBttAf2+CP64DA4o0 yQ/8+fRAZRJocWkuCt0iDx0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyWJmei445YoOGeGJ2z9jWu4EIU15JjxFiXCc5tUx4z45aMQNwAYi7wP7cmpBQTj1Ba7ofUIA==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:b348:: with SMTP id k8mr6330198wrd.157.1592501872404; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniPC ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 89sm4430330wrg.56.2020. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roni Even" <>
To: "'Black, David'" <>, <>
Cc: "'int-area'" <>, "'IETF SAAG'" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 20:37:48 +0300
Message-ID: <0a3701d64597$2f7826f0$8e6874d0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0A38_01D645B0.54C6BE80"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: he
Thread-Index: AQIBOutAlmPpEdFzIRk1z7bvh2EGWqiItdTg
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020
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: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 17:37:57 -0000


I support the publication of this draft. In my view the concerns were
answered and it reflects the view that there are consequences when
encryption the transport headers but does not claim that they should not  be

As section 1 mentions it also  explains the text in RFC7258 section 2 about
when PM is useful and as such I think that the document must be published.


Roni Even


From: tsvwg [] On Behalf Of Black, David
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2020 4:42 AM
Cc: int-area; IETF SAAG
Subject: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope):
draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020


This email announces a limited-scope 3rd TSVWG Working Group Last Call
(WGLC) on: 


    Considerations around Transport Header Confidentiality, Network

     Operations, and the Evolution of Internet Transport Protocols



This draft is intended to become an Informational RFC.  This WGLC has

been cc:'d to the SAAG and INT-AREA lists courtesy of the breadth of

interest in this draft, but WGLC discussion will take place on the TSVWG

list ( - please don't remove that list address if/when

replying with WGLC comments.


This 3rd WGLC will run through the end of the day on Monday, June 29,

2 weeks before the draft submission cutoff for IETF 108.


This 3rd WGLC is limited to the following two topics:


1.	Whether or not to proceed with a request for RFC publication

of the draft.   The decision on whether or not to proceed will

be based on rough consensus of the WG, see RFC 7282.
During the 2nd WGLC, Eric Rescorla and David Schinazi expressed
strong views that this draft should not be published -  those
concerns have not been resolved and are carried forward to

this WGLC.  This email message was an attempt to summarize

those concerns:

Further explanation from both Eric Rescorla and David Schinazi

is welcome and encouraged to ensure that their concerns are

clearly understood.


2.	Review of changes made since the -12 version of the draft that
was the subject of the second WGLC (e.g., whether or not they
suffice to resolve concerns raised during that WGLC, other
than overall objections to publishing this draft as an RFC):


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.



David and Wes (TSVWG Co-Chairs - Gorry is recused as a draft author)