Subject: [OPSEC] Comment for: draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-04

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:09:03 +1100

If the goal of the draft is to raise awareness that:
  "things are changing, old tools (tcpdump, etc) are not going to be as
useful for network troubleshooting when more of the packet is encrypted"

That's a fine goal, but statements in the draft like:

" Encryption of the transport layer brings some well-known privacy and
   security benefits, but also introduces various costs that need to be
   considered."

maybe 'considered' there should be: "planned for" ... There's also this:

  "Pervasive use of transport header encryption can impact the ways that
   protocols are designed, standardised, deployed, and operated.  The
   choice of whether future transport protocols encrypt their protocol
   headers therefore needs to be taken based not solely on security and
   privacy considerations, but also taking into account the impact on
   operations, standards, and research."

>From an operations perspective it seems that better/different tools is
still the end result of these changes. Holding back the tide of better
privacy for users in favor of not producing tooling to solve operations
problems seems contradictory to a better world for users.

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:18:34 +0800

The (very) related document that I had mentioned is:
Effect of Pervasive Encryption on Operators
              draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt

This discusses "current security and network management practices that
may be impacted by the shift to increased use of encryption to help
guide protocol development in support of manageable, secure networks."
It is trying to just note that some information which operators may
had been using becomes unavailable when there is pervasive encryption,
and that things like tools / management will need to change as a
result.

W

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Christopher Morrow
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> From an operations perspective it seems that better/different tools is still
> the end result of these changes. Holding back the tide of better privacy for
> users in favor of not producing tooling to solve operations problems seems
> contradictory to a better world for users.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf