Re: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 11 June 2020 23:59 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.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 172623A0C67 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 aokjNRwBXSe2 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5981A3A0C66 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id h188so4500555lfd.7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Y0H6dcs8gIsmGTDt5QCDJzimTCVscNe5CAYxvjef3XU=; b=L4nyDGfVQ527Naxc48JqfLeQtF/MN+bWY+5xOXWbvsH+Hv5T1P32apzW9r3XGizKXY 1DTS740yREkmt2/4ezsqT6IFrFjDi4DfLpKcLOutjaudqYT1yG8U9C+cxl0kKXsFvRJm wt1vdAdDbfc+omKGP5zASzpLxj47ih5Nwh5o9OgwoV6VUDSiZ/Pf15pl3re81Nk07Kw4 aVWe3UNR3Gad+UydP7gNIrAk36Nw3PitWRVLxjp0UHsfSpnENM7PDhnWW1P7vczpUSxE h9edDG60asi9y4WGlW23Qx3I6zpFOynGiixNPsGFE/8sMATfD/WjtXNiXHF9IbsAAFgT 8K/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Y0H6dcs8gIsmGTDt5QCDJzimTCVscNe5CAYxvjef3XU=; b=oZuQlb64qGIuX/GyJ286TzIWFjxjxaDuW31Wqpg7GXcQzBLTmsW+5OJsCdPx0v1apw 0sKQ7bk1wskVDJK2DQgU3V1Os87LzDaVGNaPXZ5hEpGwcb0MEB3jLwO6Hoe36nMRTsIV CDlfqHo1TBXBQtIPIUQ/EMhZ0hGrOsqCkEbotOddw8AIxbuJ9rvDG89JOw04/1oTBDA0 VO07KItVHEcEOrl+JmaR3oAjfXGrUAQoASDFCEob/EskoKUFWcoBUhcPokCzvZM/08Bm 7Ts42Bl9KuPw+RSAQDY11C9iJAKp8clhGnNAzSGD079A+VidM8S1u0me6o8APHmpXRp7 eaHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533GB7r/OWK9uGuE1BD8juSwomkgGw10oaKTclhmOuxpXvRfjhdw h854mNNE52TboYfP1fP7w1NtCEzAyOyzpG3hGRDn80rK
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzgdGKEVkwdF61UJ2dhwupe3SXt4R561DqQByLhs/Q2PW+UJJhZWDj6tmA30j2UWxjL9rq4N1dEshuLJRgKGrM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:62:: with SMTP id i2mr5360207lfo.152.1591919946593; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR19MB40450EE357BEECD723AB06F183820@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <63DFB8B9-83DA-445E-AB71-1486D7BA33B4@eggert.org> <MN2PR22MB20937288EA97CC6713196657DA830@MN2PR22MB2093.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR22MB20937288EA97CC6713196657DA830@MN2PR22MB2093.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 18:58:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-eMmH8Z5OHgj_1UcwBbCOKq_OaaO=RmN1pJBYNO8bZtYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ed7a1805a7d7be21"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/gS-FCO3YqGsH2NH6doIO9t6yW3w>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 23:59:11 -0000

So, backing up a bit ... since the update to RFC 2026 has been approved.

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:46 AM Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be> wrote:

> At a high level, I find myself agreeing with David and Ekr: this document
> doesn’t tell you whether to encrypt, it describes what breaks if you do.
> According to the Conclusion, that is its goal.
>
>    This document has described some current practises, and the
>
>    implications for some stake holders, when transport layer header
>
>    encryption is used.  It does not judge whether these practises are
>
>    necessary, or endorse the use of any specific practise.
>
>
>
> I was surprised, however, that it doesn’t go into equal depth about what
> breaks if you *don’t* encrypt.  While both sides of the coin are present
> in the document, one side is presented in considerably more detail than the
> other.  This document starts off fairly balanced; I found Section 2 to be
> an excellent discussion of the trade-offs in this space.  Section 3 turns a
> corner into an extensive discussion of all the things inspection of the
> transport headers are used for today, weighing in at 14 pages.
> Interestingly, this includes at least one example of exactly the behavior
> that’s discussed as a problem in Section 2:
>
>
>
>       A network operator can observe the headers of transport protocols
>
>       layered above UDP to understand if the datagram flows comply with
>
>       congestion control expectations.
>
>
>
> Dropping packets which don’t comply with the operator’s “expectations” in
> a protocol they don’t understand is *exactly* why new protocols and
> evolution of existing protocols want to limit the ability of these devices
> to inspect their traffic.
>
>
>
> Section 4.1 devotes all of one page to the reasons why protocol developers
> might choose to encrypt; the rest of section 4 describes various forms of
> integrity and confidentiality mechanisms in extant protocols.  The
> remainder of the document discusses alternative ways to enable the
> scenarios of Section 3 in the presence of encryption.
>

Are there reasons why protocol developers might choose to encrypt beyond
what's pointed to in the draft, including reasons included by reference to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8546, which appear in 3.1 and 3.1.1?

Is there a place that they are written down, so they could be included by
reference?

Best,

Spencer


> On the whole, I think this document could be suitable for publication as an Informational RFC; it provides real-world context for a trade-off that every protocol designer needs to consider carefully.  However, I don’t believe its current state reflects, in Ekr’s words, “the IETF community's view of the relative priority of these concerns.”
>
>
>
> *From:* QUIC <quic-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Lars Eggert
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:08 AM
> *To:* IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Fwd: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope):
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020
>
>
>
> FYI
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
> *From: *"Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
>
> *Subject: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope):
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020*
>
> *Date: *June 9, 2020 at 4:41:40 GMT+3
>
> *To: *"tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
>
> *Cc: *int-area <int-area@ietf.org>rg>, IETF SAAG <saag@ietf.org>
>
>
>
> This email announces a limited-scope 3rd TSVWG Working Group Last Call
> (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/
>
>
>
> This draft is intended to become an Informational RFC.  This WGLC has
>
> been cc:’d to the SAAG and INT-AREA lists courtesy of the breadth of
>
> interest in this draft, but WGLC discussion will take place on the TSVWG
>
> list (tsvwg@ietf.org) – please don’t remove that list address if/when
>
> replying with WGLC comments.
>
>
>
> This 3rd WGLC will run through the end of the day on Monday, June 29,
>
> 2 weeks before the draft submission cutoff for IETF 108.
>
>
>
> This 3rd WGLC is limited to the following two topics:
>
>
>
>    1. Whether or not to proceed with a request for RFC publication
>
> of the draft.   The decision on whether or not to proceed will
>
> be based on rough consensus of the WG, see RFC 7282.
> During the 2nd WGLC, Eric Rescorla and David Schinazi expressed
> strong views that this draft should not be published –  those
> concerns have not been resolved and are carried forward to
>
> this WGLC.  This email message was an attempt to summarize
>
> those concerns:
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/i4qyY1HRqKwm0Jme9UtEb6DyhXU/
>
> Further explanation from both Eric Rescorla and David Schinazi
>
> is welcome and encouraged to ensure that their concerns are
>
> clearly understood.
>
>
>
>    1. Review of changes made since the -12 version of the draft that
>    was the subject of the second WGLC (e.g., whether or not they
>    suffice to resolve concerns raised during that WGLC, other
>    than overall objections to publishing this draft as an RFC):
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-12&url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15
>
>
>
> 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 and Wes (TSVWG Co-Chairs – Gorry is recused as a draft author)
>
>
>