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

David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 06 November 2019 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <dschinazi.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 6DCFC120943; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:52:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 yv0QKd7Crm9N; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:52:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (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 53F2512084D; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:52:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id k15so15030472lja.3; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 09:52:46 -0800 (PST)
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=W7rhooxw1YPBCokn6AsiMtjDj6rKk0RscxFvzjxr4Ow=; b=J40TGKVNgcHNXqgW/AcOhUcFc780jDFC4cP9A9xuozFkOpHl6lSVl9a6JH46tmW/dw ckRHE0ZJwi6NEnz7jHu2oTa0JMOJEPunFPUsntgtzu/nPoW6gtxXobcKxcbhaXxcPRnM HAQCT2nmcn/26vJbOVh7pkLH5mR/48h2Oa9cdXxHjf9yY1hmvFAww6qWRMG87ftjwrih 4luLt5VRl4a/oQ0IR2VoVVu5sWyPCqvta9gXSMyqS1tEr+Qnq+zOQaKfbErn3U3+Ijzp tpHhErWXAxfQ333iBJrOiIpP/BLr2ufhvIDapKYAZkozf8uVBSHTNOkfuBkcABVzdDKS stSA==
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=W7rhooxw1YPBCokn6AsiMtjDj6rKk0RscxFvzjxr4Ow=; b=Be6hd70L5NieqNnA7/gwVUZN+uVQiDe5A2N+Ovkwx9tfRQyn3r8Gjq2J6FHUW5fDmx qtBj+Q28gjSat/DmwAGUgFjepaFRLg7Vt5TsbNwREF0KSmFEuxeCHiALSDsGNdO9yDun RiDSZ6JrWSOAI8c7pw5IkA4IW15HtmFDlOAZKU9NS73bSVAKJ3kj4ElfPDfrVyRDouTy p2p6TRatfAc2HcmgpDpOznkWghhtW1W5jQwIIV54tw7uapnBNUOIJBJKaw+u1vRQ0lGI cYQvz3tChWqymt8uBT3121vGmkdWGdUjKFwSOyJ14WT1Ln9qwtY8AulxNKN+2FbgtytX MBRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXJ5I0POnhB7eWz1UQXVsXigZ5vJTDId7BNloaV11FQBlAMgtDs 4nriw6wpquksQ4Wf7MzJo4gyemLr9/qM+57sdcw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyVfsDvZBnUYV/5K9LP2pgbLAVFyMaMSzhHfBXzDhZB8W3HfHyMcP06fDgTTuxOb/0i5N7IWgiCOsVgnoOGur8=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:2c19:: with SMTP id s25mr2896951ljs.26.1573062764417; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 09:52:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <67CE4313-A4C2-4CC7-972E-CB465D47B7FE@ericsson.com> <998B7C3E-54D8-40AC-BF91-901390CF70C5@strayalpha.com> <CAPDSy+5rvaXgEGZ7_V4pRdmBss7Hf1XmaGbiXGZceQu9hjjRTQ@mail.gmail.com> <9687A3AC-870A-46E1-BD2A-7041410CFF75@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <9687A3AC-870A-46E1-BD2A-7041410CFF75@ericsson.com>
From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:52:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPDSy+6Ls0DLgN+-Ju5Zr+56wgqgq_PUj+2kkhwcAhhYUC3dCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com>
Cc: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000048565a0596b1376a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/ngHFn6uoEcZQo6Us0GJmmEVHt1c>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [saag] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08.txt
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 17:52:54 -0000

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 <
mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com> 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 <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>om>:
>
> 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 <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 5, 2019, at 12:35 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=
>> 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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
>>
>