Subject: Document Action: 'Considerations around Transport Header Confidentiality, Network Operations, and the Evolution of Internet Transport Protocols' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-21.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2021 09:57:38 -0700

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Considerations around Transport Header Confidentiality, Network
   Operations, and the Evolution of Internet Transport Protocols'
  (draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-21.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Transport Area Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Zaheduzzaman Sarker and Martin Duke.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt/

Technical Summary

   This documents some of the operations that network elements perform using transport layer information, without endorsing or condemning these practices, in an effort to inform   protocol designers of the implications, positive and negative, of transport layer encryption. If some of these operations are viewed as beneficial, protocol designers might select various mitigations.

Working Group Summary

The crucial conclusion of the first WGLC was that the draft was overly
critical of transport header encryption - to quote one of the commenters
(Christian Huitema):
	Much of the draft reads like a lamentation of the horrible
	consequences of encrypting transport headers ...
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/ctPi-nysGSrUNRl_slM8HNYNl60/)

In light of this outcome, the draft was extensively rewritten in
consultation with a number of the commenters to better balance the draft
with an overall goal of taking a roughly neutral stance on transport
header encryption - neither in favor of nor opposed to, but rather with
a primary purpose of explaining some design considerations.  Numerous
other WGLC suggestions for improved text were also incorporated. Most of the
remaining work on the draft continued to neutralize its tone. The third and
final WGLC was judged to have rough consensus, except for the issue as to
whether it reflected IETF consensus. The chairs and AD decided to send it to
IETF Last Call to resolve this question. IETF Last Call was uneventful.

The shepherd's writeup (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt/shepherdwriteup/)
is useful for further discussion of this document's evolution.

Document Quality

The document has received extensive input and thoroughly discusses the subject. The main criticism is whether it reflects IETF consensus on encryption.

Personnel
Document Shepherd: David Black
Responsible AD: Martin Duke