IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Comment on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Sat, 29 February 2020 02:34 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4573A09B9 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:34:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lk4VQXpQEaRz for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:34:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6A9C3A09B7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:34:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=xgv3hCbgfp5SPK/AzkfhJB/vri1pXJpoVXUJKR/EcW0=; b=Ja3TtsBwFfG/q8vMbYTA4n+s2 3sRuJPhyM/fLhKkMGOsVqPq9Q04g5P9sd4jBa2xHRvWUSYDbumai1P0O79YqaCbcSTJnc4+O+7zhv fOXBPyT67XOLzB7zwf3r27CRXigLXA/AKn/I7unKWydVfkvMTEiyQ8e/BpoZya1wygtxLcebOb+KW bm5VkaHz0eHjDdR75kv2c0H0s3otX526Xqa4A/N+AMYu2wksLFU5sMfKDpiZZvhVF9QjCVIPhN0U9 Pt+fvGo7Bfc/9FLdRh1BGe13I+pUiYxqSdSzRJc5MCebGHAPCngm5ZbcfvfQdKklZUUB9WNqrAMM9 VSWmOW54A==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:59623 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1j7rxi-001Q9f-Ej; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 21:34:46 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E108C1DE-6E68-4749-9024-1699E4D37CF4"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S35kYjmv9PZx6rFc8O3dirE9e-=JLS9NB=fKxc-9yN4XOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:34:41 -0800
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <55C3AE6F-9177-453D-88D9-1E585B44F2BE@strayalpha.com>
References: <CALx6S37iBDc7KxOL60=HC_QkWH06-5MU2rqrK=w+mqiKkSdc0w@mail.gmail.com> <5C993764-1D9A-4B04-A217-2B444008EBE2@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S37KLMLGKnhPs4tfuR7zSA63SUqcL9tA+uo8RBFf+MX82Q@mail.gmail.com> <94B9E18E-6E8E-43F7-83D4-6FAC40579ED8@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35kYjmv9PZx6rFc8O3dirE9e-=JLS9NB=fKxc-9yN4XOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/dglS0xvsUopYFOlU0mi-WN0LP-E>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Comment on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 02:34:51 -0000


> On Feb 28, 2020, at 6:29 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 6:23 PM Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com <mailto:touch@strayalpha.com>> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> Joe,
>> 
>> If I understand the draft correctly, it is describing a number of use cases where intermediate nodes are extracting information directly from transport headers. When transport layer header is encrypted that ability is lost and the network can't use transport layer information to the benefit of the user. The idea of putting the necessary information elsewhere in the packet in cleartext is what HBH could provide.
> 
> Certainly - but the HBH header would be at the network layer, not transport, right? (I got the impression you were hinting at a cleartext part of the transport header for this purpose)
> 
> Right, that's a proposal for sender to explicitly put transport related information in network layer for consumption by the network. I think the draft advocates that transport designers consider selectively not encrypting fields in transport header for benefit of network.

AFAICT, the draft seemed to indicate either one was a possible way forward. Given it isn’t making recommendations, is there more missing?

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email