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

"Roni Even (A)" <> Thu, 24 October 2019 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E441200B5 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 04:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P5seNhqLDdu8 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 04:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39AB212004E for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 04:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7677D57ECC159C692797 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 12:23:26 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 12:23:25 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:23:19 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019
Thread-Index: AdV+G8KrHilhGiOXTWCYmsmWOFaL2QMQQhyw
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 11:23:19 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD23D935C4DGGEMM506MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019
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, 24 Oct 2019 11:23:30 -0000

The  document is well written and provides a very good analyses on the impact of transport header confidentially.

In my view some of the conclusions in section 7 can have a wider scope then just about header confidentiality and can be used as some guidelines on what to look at when designing new transports. The first bullet in section 7 has a wider scope.

Roni Even

From: tsvwg [] On Behalf Of Black, David
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2019 12:06 AM
Subject: [tsvwg] 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


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.


David, Gorry and Wes

(TSVWG Co-Chairs)