[tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15: Conclusion of 3rd WGLC

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

This email reports the conclusion of the third (limited scope) WGLC on:

    Considerations around Transport Header Confidentiality, Network
     Operations, and the Evolution of Internet Transport Protocols
                 draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt/

(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/UIw6tgdSs3AzOc3CFZgwR7HKk7A/)

The purpose of the 3rd Working Group Last Call (WGLC) was to deal with
two topics:

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

                2.            Review of changes made since the -12 version of the draft
                                that was the subject of the second WGLC.

Starting with the second topic, the conclusion of the 3rd WGLC is that
the changes since the -12 version are generally ok.  A number of
editorial comments have been received by the authors and are reflected
in the -16 version of the draft.

The first topic (publication) is more complex.  Including the authors,
at least 10 responses to the WGLC have expressed support for publishing
this draft as a RFC.  That suffices to state that the rough consensus
of the TSVWG WG is proceed with publication of this draft in roughly
its current form, and in particular the rough consensus is not to add
material on encryption recommendations for transport protocol
designers, e.g., as requested by David Schinazi:
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/uqEBlJF-T3IiFzECZk-6GE3_-tA/).

That leaves the issue of how to publish the draft, in particular,
whether to publish it as an Informational RFC in the IETF Stream.
RFC 8789 has recently updated RFC 2026 to now require IETF Consensus
for IETF Stream Informational RFCs.  This issue is solely about IETF
consensus, e.g., as Eric Rescorla wrote at the conclusion of his
message on this issue:

   To be maximally clear: I don't object to this document existing
   and I don't think that the opinions implicit in it are ones that
   should not be expressed. I merely don't think that it should be
   published as an IETF Consensus document.

(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/AValrZYGcb-n0SNA0niZJ2rW1Zo/)

The issue of this draft not being consistent with IETF consensus on
encryption usage is long-standing, having been raised at the first
WGLC on this draft, and it is also equally long-disputed, likewise
since the first WGLC on this draft.  Based on that history and the
3rd WGLC, I do not see TSVWG working group rough consensus one way or
the other on whether this draft is consistent with IETF consensus.
Proceeding further requires determining the IETF consensus on this
draft, and the TSVWG working group is not the best choice of forum
for determining IETF consensus in this specific situation.

In consultation with the responsible Area Director (Martin Duke), the
chosen path forward to a conclusion on this issue is to consult the
IETF community on IETF consensus via an IETF Last Call.  The fact that
IETF consensus (or lack thereof) on this draft is unknown and needs
to be determined will be explicitly noted in the shepherd writeup
for this draft and should be explicitly mentioned in the IETF Last
Call announcement for this draft.

Thanks, --David (TSVWG co-chair)
----------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Distinguished Engineer
Dell Technologies, Infrastructure Systems Group
176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
[phone]<tel:[phone]>           Mobile: [phone]<tel:[phone]>
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
----------------------------------------------------------------