IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] transport-encrypt-14 review, pt 1

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Thu, 09 April 2020 20:20 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 B05043A0D87; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 13:20:33 -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 7wyMyrAr6u3r; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 13:20:32 -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 3D2A63A0D9F; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 13:20:32 -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=+0HH1PRVc8pv/xsaUtA076525r1u/0irD6c62gjXbi8=; b=ccad9rdzjDo10y+cnsonVmHkH XnzoDCbjfHmYsHho5whGiE+BB/vLGRUHpdgpttQIIQb4T8z9xDNoY40BwYxU5mpn5A8T1Xu1Xvrub yVX7G+n70D1q3++CjTRizG6M8C1IuL3T7R6enBQcucUWR5kB9YBLd1Z1jvZgbixGOFIuEQGN62z1S lewHuzVHnuOvP51wlJVs9pxzUhuB/1J3JGClmBrrSCjnep+tXS+notXglcG/B/BlxCwR+rdnYOO6i aTDTeVK0AI+Fxh11QLzFXgYmIw6MiEEV4z9847nd6gwn4dej2wgPwim8i8s46gd5e2gQO19OA0MOr oGKvmn2ug==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:50155 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1jMdf1-000tj1-3i; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 16:20:31 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2284E130-2B1D-46E2-B4E9-21E36E357096"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.5\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxTbVSX1voJjzyt3YdapPuv7+K4EpU35SWYC3Y0rmo7Tww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 13:20:26 -0700
Cc: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt.all@ietf.org, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <5922D0CB-81B7-467D-862F-28872476B3B8@strayalpha.com>
References: <CAM4esxTbVSX1voJjzyt3YdapPuv7+K4EpU35SWYC3Y0rmo7Tww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.5)
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/lJ-2BIku85QyAF3zqWtpBYfJ1as>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] transport-encrypt-14 review, pt 1
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, 09 Apr 2020 20:20:34 -0000


> On Apr 9, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> - Conversely, middlebox interference with headers does enable performance enhancing proxies for extraordinary link types like satellite.

Those are only “extraordinary” only in the “been around for 50 years in the Arpanet/Internet”. That understanding goes back as far as RFC 346 and IEN 8.

Additionally, ground nets often experience similar BW delay products, which can be the dominant driver. 

There are known ways to help TCP over such links that don’t involve these sort of steps, documented as far back as RFC 2488, some of which are now being incorporated (faster window growth and recovery, ala Hybla).

I.e., just because a mechanism CAN rely on these headers doesn’t mean that’s the only - or even safe - way to do so.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email