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

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:39 AM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> IMO, this isn’t a “tussle” so much as “I really want to do something I know I shouldn’t be doing”.
>
+1.

I don't see a tussle here. Transport headers are E2E protocols and
were never designed to be consumed by intermediate nodes. Any use case
of intermediate nodes consuming information in the transport layer
header, with the possible exception of NAT, is ad hoc and
non-conformant with the standard. Per the Internet architecture
exposure of this information is not required for routing packets
through intermediate devices, encrypting transport headers is
consistent with the architecture and closes a security hole. As a
transport protocol developer, the _only_ reason I wouldn't encrypt the
transport header is if that is the only way to get packets to a
destination; the possibility there _might_ be some benevolent node in
the network providing some ad hoc benefit users is not enough
justification for sending transport headers in plain text.

I do believe that there will be valid use cases for hosts to signal
the network for services. There is a least one robust, explicit, and
transport agnostic method to allow hosts to signal the network with
transport related information and even application layer information--
that's Hop-by-Hop Options extension header. A critical difference with
parsing transport layers, is that the end host is in control of what
information is exposed in HBH options. As I've said several times, I
believe this draft is missing on the opportunity to propose this as
the "solution" to middleboxes losing visibility because of encryption.
Also, I think the encryption and the perceived loss of visibility is
inevitable anyway so we do need a real solution. (this story is eerily
and the arguments from middlebox view is eerily similar to when TLS
was turned up in the Internet).

Tom

> A lot of what transport security prevents is - from the middlebox view - a problem.
>
> For many of us users, preventing middleboxes from doing things like hijacking web, email, and DNS is *exactly* the protection we were seeking.
>
> Joe
>
> On Oct 9, 2019, at 7:32 AM, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> wrote:
>
> As the draft mentions:
>
>    The use of transport layer authentication and encryption exposes a
>
>    tussle between middlebox vendors, operators, applications developers
>
>    and users
>
> Much of the draft reads like a lamentation of the horrible consequences of encrypting transport headers, which looks very much like embracing the point of view of the middlebox vendors. Expressing that point of view is of course fine, and it might be enough to change the title, abstract and introduction to reflect that this is an opinion piece. But as a transport working group document I would like something a bit more balanced. It should spend more time acknowledging the ossification and privacy issues. It should ideally lay the ground work for alternative management solutions, such as controlled exposure like the spin bit in QUIC, IP header information, or standardized logs like the QLOG effort.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
>
> On 10/8/2019 2:08 PM, Black, David wrote:
>
> FYI – some OPS area and SEC area eyes on this TSVWG draft now (during WGLC) would be a good thing ;-).
>
> Thanks, --David (TSVWG co-chair)
>
> From: Black, David <david.black@emc.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2019 5:06 PM
> To: tsvwg@ietf.org
> Cc: Black, David
> Subject: 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
>                  draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt/
>
> 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 tsvwg@ietf.org list, although purely
> editorial comments may be sent directly to the authors. Please cc: the
> WG chairs at tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org  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.
>
> Thanks,
> David, Gorry and Wes
> (TSVWG Co-Chairs)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>
>