Re: [tsvwg] Comment on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-13

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 24 March 2020 03:49 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 7E7343A0F94 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
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 c6UIcq273-AQ for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
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 225C23A011D for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
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=dHieHYPgHBV/QgXFqguRSO9qK/j01tyThOc0CuU0/bU=; b=1X/dX6eHEOkLWbo8sOHwc8nef urJkoSTIdZsYtw+nVxfL36rEbHwBefhw/+AmtBaEmBN7E3jCcttsD4zOuI61xtC8Mhf6sWhgIugtO 0ysk4ulJ9hWvD07HepWV2BBFmSLN7Echbmu0QGikZmuRFYCw6l0WNbxAd837gZ39IwmLFvxpzt68e vEyLTb6T8GXxua105tcx9tgaYXZHCQtK5yPrJMUuVZhiK65aI9AKI8RqFzGPFD8wYn2Nul2RMar5e jAJ/fJ1NqYYI9WAFHLM5ZjUmnhruQD073E8RfB9QrPUnpmWzXpOy3q5b8bNevquTa4PVbJvqgYRpx 4iBMMExug==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:50314 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 1jGaZ2-003oZS-OP; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 23:49:21 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_265C9E05-C052-471B-A476-FA97532C521F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S35J8K0bAmPp72svv+BuOKc1ZdrK_odfcJsPujmQz-iyyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:49:16 -0700
Cc: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <F652A257-88C7-4400-A119-8180200F0C3C@strayalpha.com>
References: <CALx6S349SE2Ho0V2bJPSE7dh3+2f5Wiw1AofMke0RY4FwF=ebw@mail.gmail.com> <679FAA73-401E-499D-87CB-10F973E05DD6@strayalpha.com> <MN2PR19MB40455E00DB52880A38EB494C83F00@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <4FA8060E-C661-42FB-BCA1-43F32E5FA1F5@strayalpha.com> <MN2PR19MB40458C69C9C91C70AD889D3A83F10@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <CALx6S35J8K0bAmPp72svv+BuOKc1ZdrK_odfcJsPujmQz-iyyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5
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/kp4mvELLmbu9emc0rtT7ciKRAD4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Comment on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-13
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: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 03:49:37 -0000

+1

> On Mar 23, 2020, at 8:21 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
>> NEW
>> 
>>   o  On the one hand, protocols do not necessarily have an incentive to
>> 
>>      expose information that is used by the protocol.  The incentive
>> 
>>      to expose transport header information has to be considered when
>> 
>>      proposing a method to do so.
>> 
> David,
> 
> That's changing the meaning of the text. The original text was making
> a point that if transport layer information is exposed there needs to
> be an incentive for the host to set the information honestly and
> correctly. This is true, not just for transport layer information but
> for everything the host tells the network. An obvious example is TOS
> in IPv4-- left to their own devices everyone would just request the
> highest level of service of traffic for all packets. So we need some
> tangible incentive for user to be honest and correct. For instance,
> TOS might have worked if the user were explicitly charged for the
> higher level of service, but that would imply a contract between the
> network and the host is established and a whole bunch of mechanisms
> that require far more than just anonymously volunteering some
> arbitrary amount of transport layer information.
> 
> Tom