Re: [tsvwg] [saag] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08.txt

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

On 11/4/2019 8:16 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> [MK] That’s not the intention here. But we also need to consider ways to interact with the network where this brings benefit to both the network and the performance of the end-to-end traffic. There are situation where this is the case. And I don’t think one makes sense without the other.
> Mirja,
>
> Yes, that is true. We need a way to allow hosts to signal the network.
> But doing this in the transport layer is architecturally incorrect,
> has led to protocol ossification, isn't robust like in the case of
> QUIC, presents a security and privacy risk, and doesn't scale beyond
> supporting one or maybe two transport protocols. Expliciting signaling
> contained in the network layer headers that is under control of the
> sending host is the correct alternative IMO.

+1.

We would be better off if we started work on this sooner rather than later.

-- Christian Huitema