Re: [tsvwg] [saag] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08.txt

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

Perhaps I misunderstood the document. The draft makes a lists
of issues that arise when you encrypt transport headers, then
concludes with a call to action to take these issues into
consideration. In your reading, what is the desired outcome of
this document? As a protocol designer, what do you expect me
to do differently when I design my next protocol after reading this
document? The tone seems to imply that I should leave some
headers unencrypted in order "to ensure network operators,
researchers and other stakeholders have appropriate tools to
manage their networks". If this is not the intent of this draft, then
what is it? What exact outcome or we hoping for?

Thanks,
David


On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:14 PM Mirja Kuehlewind <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> This document is not intended to discourage header encryption but to make
> sure that operational considerations are taken into account when exactly
> design new protocols that should have header encryption (as well as payload
> encryption). If you think this document discourages header encryption, we
> need to fix that. Would be helpful if you could indicate to the authors
> where you think this is the case.
>
> Mirja
>
>
> Am 05.11.2019 um 23:10 schrieb David Schinazi <[e-mail]>:
>
> I also oppose publication of draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt. This
> document discourages transport header encryption and publishing it could
> harm future protocol development.
>
> David
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 1:04 PM Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 5, 2019, at 12:35 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > What I’m hearing is that 2-3 people think this is not aligned but don’t
>> actually say why exactly they think that
>>
>> That’s not what we’re saying. We gave reasons.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>