Hi, I support the publication of this draft. In my view the concerns were answered and it reflects the view that there are consequences when encryption the transport headers but does not claim that they should not be encrypted.
As section 1 mentions it also explains the text in RFC7258 section 2 about when PM is useful and as such I think that the document must be published. Roni Even From: tsvwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Black, David Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2020 4:42 AM To: [email protected] Cc: int-area; IETF SAAG Subject: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020 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-tsvwg-transport-encrypt/ This draft is intended to become an Informational RFC. This WGLC has been cc:'d to the SAAG and INT-AREA lists courtesy of the breadth of interest in this draft, but WGLC discussion will take place on the TSVWG list ([email protected]) - please don't remove that list address if/when replying with WGLC comments. This 3rd WGLC will run through the end of the day on Monday, June 29, 2 weeks before the draft submission cutoff for IETF 108. This 3rd WGLC is limited to the following two topics: 1. Whether or not to proceed with a request for RFC publication of the draft. The decision on whether or not to proceed will be based on rough consensus of the WG, see RFC 7282. During the 2nd WGLC, Eric Rescorla and David Schinazi expressed strong views that this draft should not be published - those concerns have not been resolved and are carried forward to this WGLC. This email message was an attempt to summarize those concerns: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/i4qyY1HRqKwm0Jme9UtEb6DyhXU/ Further explanation from both Eric Rescorla and David Schinazi is welcome and encouraged to ensure that their concerns are clearly understood. 2. Review of changes made since the -12 version of the draft that was the subject of the second WGLC (e.g., whether or not they suffice to resolve concerns raised during that WGLC, other than overall objections to publishing this draft as an RFC): https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-12 <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-12&url 2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15> &url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15 Comments should be sent to the [email protected] list, although purely editorial comments may be sent directly to the authors. Please cc: the WG chairs at [email protected] if you would like the chairs to track such editorial comments as part of the WGLC process. No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on this draft. Thanks, David and Wes (TSVWG Co-Chairs - Gorry is recused as a draft author)
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
