Subject: [OPSAWG] editorial notes on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 17:36:36 -0600

A few things that earned a red pen while I was reading.
Sadly, I did not have time to correlate with other reviews, so
probably some of these were already caught.

Abstract:

"recognized that making networks unmanageable" (add "that")
comma --> semicolon after outcome

Section 1.1, first paragraph, last sentence: this sentence is pretty
rambly -- "the acceptance of" may be unneeded, and the last clause
could become ", since the latter is more easily deployed than the
former, and is preferrable to no encryption at all"

Page 5, last line, s/enhances/enhance/

Page 6, second paragraph, "preventing the vulnerability described
above by providing an end-to-end solution" -- "providing an
end-to-end solution" does not itself describe a vulnerability.

Page 7, first (partial) paragraph, last sentence: there seem to be
missing or vague (pro)nouns -- who is "they", and the actions are
taken by several what?

Section 2, second pargraph, s/purpose of each technique/purpose of
several techniques/ -- this is not an exhaustive listing.

Section 2.2.1, first paragraph, does "this configuration" inherently
require TLS termination, or only some configurations of it?

Page 12, penultimate and last paragraphs: we seem to talk about
using the sequence number as a cookie before we talk about TCP
allowing the use of server-generated sequence numbers for a side
channel, which seems out of order.

I'm pretty sure (e.g.) Christian already noted that section 2.2.3
reads more like a note-to-self than complete sentences, but just in
case he didn't, it does.

Section 2.2.4, first sentence, s/,/;/ to avoid a comma splice

Page 14, last line, s/changing/changes

Section 2.2.5, first paragraph, last sentence, I think it would help
to clarify the nature of the business risk, since it's not really
covered very much immediately prior.

I'm not sure that the last paragraph of section 2.2.7 adds any
value.

Section 2.3, last sentence, s/,/;/ again

Page 17, last (partial) pargraph, second sentence, s/,/;/
Next sentence, I don't think this si really TLS-specific, and I
might s/where this/that/, if I understand the intent correctly.

I'm always surprised to see "SPAM" in all-caps, as it's not an
acronym or abbreviation.

Page 26, second line, "the storage" (add "the")

Section 4.1.3.2:
second line, s/allow/allows/
s/The use TCP/The use of TCP/
last sentence, "Troubleshooting capabilities with encrypted sessions
from the middlebox may be limited to the use of [...]"

Page 38, first complete sentence, I don't understand what this is
trying to say.  Currently you'll usally see an SNI; is this trying
to say that in a move to a more-encrypted world this signal will go
away?

Section 7.4, I'm a bit confused by the first sentence.  Maybe,
"Transport header encryption prevents trusted transit proxies from
[existing|doing some sort of thing]"?
Or maybe just s/prevents/prohibits/?

Page 41, OS is used before it is expanded.

Hope this is helpful (and feel free to repost somewhere public if
you think it's merited),

Benjamin

---

From: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 03:10:00 +0000

Thank you, Ben.  These are helpful and actionable comments.  If I had time before the telechat, I would update.  We’ll include these just after the telechat.

Best,
Kathleen 

Sent from my mobile device

> On Feb 6, 2018, at 6:36 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]> wrote:
>