On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 9:41 PM Black, David <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > > draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsDo we have machines near IAD > that Asgard can use vwg-transport-encrypt/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt/> > I support requesting publication of this draft as an informational RFC. There's no reason a draft aimed exclusively at identifying, contextualizing, and offering high-level mitigations for a set of related technical problems (in this case, the operational problems exacerbated by transport header encryption) needs to incorporate advocacy of any kind. It is very clear from other publications and from on-going work that the consensus of the IETF is in favor of measures to combat pervasive surveillance and to limit protocol ossification. The purpose of *this* document seems to be to end the pretense that there is no resulting tradeoff or that by ignoring operational issues related to transport header encryption they'll go away on their own. That said, even then it does not in any way advocate against transport encryption, and is circumspect in its proposals for measures to improve diagnostic visibility. Kyle
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
