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

[Joseph Touch <[e-mail]>]

> On Mar 23, 2020, at 3:19 PM, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> [writing as draft shepherd]
>  
> Point taken – would it be reasonable to rework that paragraph to observe that there should be incentives for endpoints to expose transport information, e.g., otherwise implementers may simply not bother?

That sounds like it’s leaning towards extortion - the kind we have now, in which “if you don’t let us see your ports and we don’t like them, we’ll block you”.

I’d lean the other way - that the network really shouldn’t be doing anything based on information gleaned from transports - explicitly given or not - because it only serves to create mutual escalation of misinformation.

Joe

>  
> Thanks, --David
>  
> From: tsvwg <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Joseph Touch
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 11:20 AM
> To: Tom Herbert
> Cc: tsvwg
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Comment on draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-13
>  
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> On Mar 23, 2020, at 7:58 AM, Tom Herbert <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
> Fundamentally, transport layer is end-to-end information. There is no
> contract between end hosts and the network that hosts have to be
> honest or correct in setting information in the transport layer-- the
> only contract is between the endpoints. 
>  
> +1
>  
> Another point worth mentioning:
>  
> - if endpoints can lie or mislead about transport info to get their way, they can, will, and IMO *SHOULD*.
>  
> That goes for using port 53 for nearly anything anyone wants to. Transport info isn’t there to make things nice for network operators - that’s what the network layer is for.
>  
> Oh, yeah, I know - network operators don’t want “heavy” stuff in *their* headers because it slows them down when they don’t want it. Too bad, IMO. If they want the info, they need to deal with the pain.
>  
> Joe