Re: [IPsec] Adoption call for draft-hopps-ipsecme-iptfs
I have read the -01 version of this draft. I believe it addresses a useful use case and that the solution presented there is a good starting point. I support its adoption. Yoav > On 26 Oct 2019, at 18:17, Tero Kivinen wrote: > > So this is fast (one week) adoption call for the > draft-hopps-ipsecme-iptfs draft to be accepted to the WG document. We > did have quite positive feedback in last IETF meeting and the charter > item is being worked on in parallel to this call. > > If you support adopting this document as WG document and as a starting > place for the charter item proposed for the WG, then send email > indicating your support to the ipsec@ietf.org mailing-list. If you > have any comments or reservations send them to list too. > > This adoption call finishes at 2019-11-04. > > -- > The demand for Traffic Flow Confidentiality has been increasing in the user > community; however, the current method defined in RFC4303 (i.e., add null > padding to each ESP payload) is very inefficient in it's use of network > resources. The working group will develop an alternative TFC solution that > provides for efficient use of network resources. > -- > kivi...@iki.fi > > ___ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
Re: [IPsec] Adoption call for draft-hopps-ipsecme-iptfs
I've read the document and think this is good problem area to work on, and this document is a good starting place to adopt. Going forward, I would like to see more discussion and review of the use IP fragmentation (how often is that really needed, and is it worth the concerns stated in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-17), as well as the use of Congestion Control (considerations for how having multiple layers of CC works, and if we can make sure that the format of the payload is aligned with current work in QUIC, etc). Thanks, Tommy > On Oct 26, 2019, at 8:17 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote: > > So this is fast (one week) adoption call for the > draft-hopps-ipsecme-iptfs draft to be accepted to the WG document. We > did have quite positive feedback in last IETF meeting and the charter > item is being worked on in parallel to this call. > > If you support adopting this document as WG document and as a starting > place for the charter item proposed for the WG, then send email > indicating your support to the ipsec@ietf.org mailing-list. If you > have any comments or reservations send them to list too. > > This adoption call finishes at 2019-11-04. > > -- > The demand for Traffic Flow Confidentiality has been increasing in the user > community; however, the current method defined in RFC4303 (i.e., add null > padding to each ESP payload) is very inefficient in it's use of network > resources. The working group will develop an alternative TFC solution that > provides for efficient use of network resources. > -- > kivi...@iki.fi > > ___ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
Re: [IPsec] Adoption call for draft-hopps-ipsecme-iptfs
I have read the document in a few iterations. I think that it addresses an important need both for resistance to traffic analysis, but also it has the potential to deal with the PMTU problems that tunnels always seem to create. Please adopt! -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
