On Sat, Sep 15, 2018, 12:09 Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 15, 2018, at 9:55 AM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Ok. The motivation for this draft is indeed he increasing deployment
>> and coverage of encryption down the stack, which we take as a given. A
>> few sentences to make this context clear could be useful.
>
> i kind of liked just saying that strong encryption is becoming
> ubiquitous, is here to stay, and the ietf thinks that is a good thing.
> this has consequences for applications and middleboxes that have grown
> used to being able to see the traffic in cleartext.
>
>> The whole point of this line of work is to define a solution space for
>> the (technical) problems that arise when “strong encryption is here to
>> stay”
>
> for some of the consequences, there is no "solution." this may not be a
> bug.
We discussed that a lot when reviewing Kathleen's draft. There is a grab bag of stuff that have been put under the "network management" umbrella, from monitoring whether a given path is still working to being able to insert or replace ads. There is no doubt that some of that is legit and useful. The question then is where to place the line between "yes that's useful" and "forget about it". And then, how to best accommodate the useful part when most of the packet is encrypted.
Speaking as the AD who approved the SPUD BOF[1], the ACCORD BOF[2], and the PLUS BOF[3], and speaking only from a TSV perspective, I believe the status is unchanged today from the day that we walked out of the PLUS BOF, which is that the IETF is deadlocked and will remain deadlocked until one of two things happens.
- Either we deliver the kind of transport performance we want to achieve for QUIC, using only end-to-end mechanisms, with no involvement from network elements, which leads us in one direction, or
- We can't do that, which leads in a different direction.
I see no reason to debate this further until one of those two things happen, from a TSV perspective. Your mileage may vary, of course, especially if you're traveling at another level of the protocol stack ...
It's also worth pointing out that Nomcom has issued their third call for nominations for the IESG, IAB, and IETF Chair positions, if someone has a different plan ...
Otherwise, enjoy your weekends, of course. And make good choices ...
Spencer, the eternally outgoing TSV AD
p.s. For those in other rooms at the time, so who have useful alibis,
- [1] SPUD was https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/spud.html.
- [2] ACCORD was https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/accord.html.
- [3] PLUS was https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/plus.html, but honestly, must be seen at http://oldrecs.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/watch.jsp?recording=IETF96_PLUS&chapter=chapter_1 to be appreciated.
-- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
Architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
