The Impact of Transport Header Confidentiality on Network Operation and Evolution of the Internet
draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-03

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00
• 01
• 02
• 03

TSVWG                                                       G. Fairhurst
Internet-Draft                                    University of Aberdeen
Intended status: Informational                                C. Perkins
Expires: May 29, 2019                              University of Glasgow
                                                       November 25, 2018

The Impact of Transport Header Confidentiality on Network Operation and
                       Evolution of the Internet
                 draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-03

Abstract

   This document describes implications of applying end-to-end
   encryption at the transport layer.  It identifies in-network uses of
   transport layer header information.  It then reviews the implications
   of developing end-to-end transport protocols that use authentication
   to protect the integrity of transport information or encryption to
   provide confidentiality of the transport protocol header and expected
   implications of transport protocol design and network operation.
   Since transport measurement and analysis of the impact of network
   characteristics have been important to the design of current
   transport protocols, it also considers the impact on transport and
   application evolution.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 29, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Fairhurst & Perkins       Expires May 29, 2019                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Transport Encryption             November 2018

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Context and Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Current uses of Transport Headers within the Network  . . . .  10
     3.1.  Observing Transport Information in the Network  . . . . .  10
     3.2.  Transport Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     3.3.  Use for Network Diagnostics and Troubleshooting . . . . .  19
     3.4.  Header Compression  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   4.  Encryption and Authentication of Transport Headers  . . . . .  21
   5.  Addition of Transport Information to Network-Layer Protocol
       Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   6.  Implications of Protecting the Transport Headers  . . . . . .  26
     6.1.  Independent Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     6.2.  Characterising "Unknown" Network Traffic  . . . . . . . .  27
     6.3.  Accountability and Internet Transport Protocols . . . . .  27
     6.4.  Impact on Research, Development and Deployment  . . . . .  28
   7.  Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   11. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   Appendix A.  Revision information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41

1.  Introduction

   There is increased interest in, and deployment of, new protocols that
   employ end-to-end encryption at the transport layer, including the
   transport layer headers.  An example of such a transport is the QUIC
   transport protocol [I-D.ietf-quic-transport], currently being
   standardised in the IETF.  Encryption of transport layer headers and
   payload data has many benefits in terms of protecting user privacy.
   These benefits have been widely discussed [RFC7258], [RFC7624], and
   this document strongly supports the increased use of encryption in