Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 23. Mar 2019, at 16:41, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The Wire Image of a Network Protocol (draft-iab-wire-image)
>>
>>> Both are products of the IAB’s Stack Evolution Program, which has
>>> been considering the behavior of on-path network elements which
>>> observe network flows, especially when these are encrypted.
>>
>> Thank you for this work. It is very interesting description.
>>
>> I would have liked to separate out the definition of the wire image a
>> bit From the value judgement that having a smaller wire-image is a
>> good thing.
> I don’t think the doc says that the wire image needs necessarily to be
> small.
> This is in the draft:
> “… the protocol's wire image should therefore be designed to explicitly
> expose information to those network functions deemed important by the
> designers in an obvious way. The wire image should expose as little
> other information as possible.”
> Which just says that you need to design the wire image carefully to
> only expose things you really want to expose and not expose (or at
> least minimise) anything else (wherever possible).
> Where in the draft did you read that the wire image needs to be
> small. If that is in there or could be misinterpreted that way, we
> should fix that.
I think that the sentence:
The wire image should expose as little other information as possible.
seems to suggest it to me, but I agree that in fact, it doesn't say that.
I read the first sentence say that what is exposed should be intentionally
exposed.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
