Re: [tsvwg] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020 Tue, 09 June 2020 09:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D5993A0C1B for <>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 02:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FvSSej_ZdUEa for <>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 02:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D1B43A0C18 for <>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 02:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.8]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 49h4GN5PYjz8sbx; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 11:15:24 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=ORANGE001; t=1591694124; bh=grm0tDwv2OPlhUDP9EaS6TEovC5avsGlA9GHUPWxyIU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=oFKobksDtjxL1u+BRYgONSxstI9MADFUj4R42DHYaRASEjcJ52FPX3p8enD0Fgdgy c8QeoOna3RVZK+jnmXcreF8nJ4znDE6legfvHXcF/c4NvLbHmoo/6LUS99P5+azfr9 m/XKCDJqnwkePd3mskXDt++myNt4pgD6uMwZtKMNIFTP57pbh/lfci7f5clt5EyeGb LdhNm/5ws0VB9HkqXBuzl1VhWoeHZx9n9XgXeZxDiUtNCZhyBE9384qSwZOZU6NS99 N0pDUAkrsvfsKK5qUC8EmV5OkUKRHcYxi5S2UFuFO6l0aOHIcOplCNrVNagfCQXBLs cARSBxhI3rf9g==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.32]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 49h4GN2cdYz3wdg; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 11:15:24 +0200 (CEST)
From: <>
To: "Black, David" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020
Thread-Index: AdY9/kL5KQoLk/CbSKeZ9xMZ8uq3SAAP8s9g
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 09:15:23 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330314DA8E6@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330314DA8E6OPEXCAUBMA2corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 09:15:28 -0000

Hi David, all,

I support this document to be published as an RFC.

The authors already addressed my comments in an early version of the document. I do have some minor nits that I will share with the authors offline.


De : saag [] De la part de Black, David
Envoyé : mardi 9 juin 2020 03:42
À :
Cc : int-area; IETF SAAG
Objet : [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020

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


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 (<>) - 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:

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):

Comments should be sent to the<> list, although purely

editorial comments may be sent directly to the authors.  Please cc: the

WG chairs at<>  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.


David and Wes (TSVWG Co-Chairs - Gorry is recused as a draft author)