Subject: Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 16:49:19 -0400

IMHO, this is totally unacceptable for Proposed Standard status.

1. it recommends using MIME, and presumably SMTP, as a means of
tunneling IP packets.  Even considering that a content-type for
transmitting IP over MIME might be useful for "monitoring, analysis,
debugging, or illustrative purposes", that doesn't mean that we should
standardize the use of this content-type for tunneling IP packets in
operational use.  Neither the SMTP protocol nor SMTP implementations are
designed for this purpose, and the delays and jitter involved in sending
IP over SMTP make it marginally suitable at best - certainly not
something that can be expected to scale, or to work satisfactorily over
most of the Internet.  In other words, this proposal would fail to meet
criteria that we routinely apply to standards-track documents.

Furthermore, this document makes no attempt to narrow its applicability;
rather, it specifically claims that use of IP-over-MIME as a tunneling
mechanism is within scope.

2. the Introduction recommends use of NAT, which is nonstandard and
known to often be a harmful practice.  

3. Several references cited as Informative are actually Normative -
in that you can't implement the IP over MIME protocol without them.
Among these references are the reference to IETF documents which are
not on the standards track.

If we approve this as PS we are essentially recommending a stupid
practice.  At best, it's embarassing to IETF to do so; at worst, we are
endorsing an operational practice that has little practical use other
than to circumvent existing security measures.  Even if those security
measures are poorly chosen, it is not appropriate for IETF to recommend
their circumvention.

Even assuming there is a legitimate use for this, there is no need to
standardize this content-type, since content-type definitions do not
need to be on the standards track.

Keith

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 08:13:25 +1000

Keith Moore wrote:
	[..]
> practice.  At best, it's embarassing to IETF to do so;

You mean this _isn't_ an April 1st I-D that somehow "got away" into
the approval pipeline?

cheers,
gja

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 18:48:33 -0400

On Fri, 23 May 2003 16:49:19 EDT, Keith Moore said:

(I agree with the rest of what Keith said - however, there's one
area that's still up for grabs..)

> debugging, or illustrative purposes", that doesn't mean that we should

Do you think there *is* a use for monitoring/analysis/etc?  And if so,
does the draft address *that* need, or could it be made to do so?

Although I concur that using it for tunneling is right up there with avian
carriers, I personally could use something a bit more standard than just
attaching tcpdump or ethereal captures to an e-mail for sending around
previously captured packets.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 18:56:15 -0400

> does the draft address *that* need, or could it be made to do so?

I expect that it does address that need.  though for
monitoring/analysis/etc you might like some other information, like the
date/time/location at which the packet was observed, and perhaps these
could go in content-type parameters.

but from looking at the parameters that are defined, it really doesn't
seem like the intended purpose of this type is monitoring/analysis/etc.

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 21:22:58 -0400 (EDT)

Keith,

Thanks for your excellent suggestions for additional parameters to 
improve this MIME type.

What would you think of Experimental status for it?

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

On Fri, 23 May 2003, Keith Moore wrote:

> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 18:56:15 -0400
> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 21:44:09 -0400

> What would you think of Experimental status for it?

it would be a lot closer to meeting the criteria for Experimental.
oerhaps you'd like to describe the experiment?

Keith

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 22:14:55 -0400 (EDT)

Sure, one  experiment would be what the actual performance of an IP over 
MIME tunnel was.

Thanks,
Donald

On Fri, 23 May 2003, Keith Moore wrote:

> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 21:44:09 -0400
> To: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 19:16:18 -0700

> You mean this _isn't_ an April 1st I-D that somehow "got away" into

someone started screaming that the iesg was holding up a document :-)

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 22:32:41 -0400

> Sure, one  experiment would be what the actual performance of an IP over 

sounds good.  why not specify a methodology so that the test is repeatable
and the results from various experiments are comperable, and ask people to 
report their  results to you, for you to summarize via a web page or other 
means?

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 20:00:39 -0700

guess this is another opportunity for the IETF to prevent an egregious
"mistake":

          <http://www.dtnrg.org/>

We certainly don't want to permit standardization of mechanisms to
support long-term research.

d/

ga> Keith Moore wrote:
ga>         [..]
>> practice.  At best, it's embarassing to IETF to do so;

ga> You mean this _isn't_ an April 1st I-D that somehow "got away" into
ga> the approval pipeline?

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 23:50:06 -0400

> support long-term research.

perhaps you could explain, using the criteria in RFC 2026, why Proposed
Standard is either appropriate or necessary for a research project?

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 21:53:29 -0700

Keith,

>> support long-term research.

KM> perhaps you could explain, using the criteria in RFC 2026, why Proposed
KM> Standard is either appropriate or necessary for a research project?

IP over foo is not exactly packet science, that's why.

d/

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 01:02:11 -0400

> IP over foo is not exactly packet science, that's why.

nor is it standards-track material.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 14:13:36 +0100 (BST)

> IP over foo is not exactly packet science, that's why.

Ethertype in MIME would probably be more useful than IP in MIME.

L.

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><[email-masked]>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 11:40:49 -0700

Keith,

>> IP over foo is not exactly packet science, that's why.
KM> nor is it standards-track material.

Besides the fact that you happen not to like the idea of IP over Mime,
what reason is there to prevent standards-track.  We make IP-over-Foo
specifications standards track all the time.  We do not make a point of
forcing them to Experimental.

So unless there is a compelling technical reason -- especially one
having to do with risk to implementations or the Internet -- then what
is the justification for withholding standards track status (as long as
the specifications is clear and complete)?

d/

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 20:08:34 +0100 (BST)

> forcing them to Experimental.

but, sheesh, we haven't gotten an IP-over-DVB or
IP-in-MPEG-transport-streams workgroup off the ground yet.

L.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 16:48:20 -0400

> We make IP-over-Foo

Fine.  Give it the same status as IP over Avian Carriers.  Because it's 
about as useful.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 12:12:00 +0100

> Fine.  Give it the same status as IP over Avian Carriers.  Because it's 

At least piegons sit (fly) at the link layer, albeit not a very reliable one :)

Sure, we have many IP-over-foo, but invariably foo is link layer.   MIME is not.

The IETF is judged by what it produces.  There are plenty of more deserving, 
multiply implemented, useful and less frivilous drafts that are currently 
blocked that ought to be advanced before this one.

Tim

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 12:32:22 +0100 (BST)

> Sure, we have many IP-over-foo, but invariably foo is link layer.   MIME is not.

Is an MPEG transport stream a link layer?

L.

invariable, you say?

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 13:00:36 +0100

> Is an MPEG transport stream a link layer?

Has any of the suite of IP over DVB/MPEG-2 proposals made Proposed Standard yet?

Agreed IP over DVB is more interesting.  Here it is easier to make the argument
for DVB/satellite being a "link layer" to bring IP services to new audiences.

Tim

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 10:42:05 -0500

Thus spake "Lloyd Wood" <[email-masked]>
> Is an MPEG transport stream a link layer?

Some networks do actually use an MPEG transport stream for a link layer;
e.g. VSAT and ATSC.  The former has hundreds of thousands of units deployed,
and the latter will have millions within a few years.  This is clearly
important to standardize.

No reasonable use for IP over MIME has been proposed.  Research projects do
not qualify, nor does "it might be useful for ..."  The IETF should not be
encouraging a protocol whose sole use appears to be bypassing legitimate
firewalls.

Furthermore, as Keith noted, normative references to non-standards-track
documents are not allowed, and this alone is enough to keep this draft off
the standards track until this is fixed.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 16:55:12 +0100 (BST)

> important to standardize.

Well, there's a bit more to each implementation's link layer than the
MPEG transport stream, but from an IP perspective it's right to say
that IP can view the MPEG transport stream as its link layer.

(This is why I think the IP-over-DVB workgroup proposal should focus
on IP in MPEG transport streams; doing IP in MPEG well matters.)

L.

---

From: Zefram <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 19:50:24 +0100

>for DVB/satellite being a "link layer" to bring IP services to new audiences.

In other words, it's using something that is not conventionally a link
layer as a link layer.  Just like IP-over-MIME.  The distinction between
OSI layers 2-5 is overrated.

-zefram
-- 
Andrew Main (Zefram) <[email-masked]>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 10:21:32 -0700

TC> Sure, we have many IP-over-foo, but invariably foo is link layer.

IP over IP?

Also:  We have a jillion MIME types.  Why make a big deal out of this
one?  What is the damage that is of concern?

d/

---

From: Peter Deutsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 16:23:15 -0700

g'day,

Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> one?  What is the damage that is of concern?

Maybe you didn't pick up on it, but Keith did write:

# 2. the Introduction recommends use of NAT, which is nonstandard and
# known to often be a harmful practice.  

Seems obvious to me - Keith smells a NAT rat trying to get its nose
under the IETF tent flap, and is on the warpath again....  ;-)

				- peterd

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Deutsch                       [email-masked]
    Gydig Software

             "I'm no stranger to sarcasm, Sir..."

                               - Red versus Blue

---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 17:55:03 -0700 (PDT)

> one?  What is the damage that is of concern?

   Running code?

	   Mike

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 21:45:37 -0400

> Also:  We have a jillion MIME types.

most of them aren't standards-track.

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 09:34:43 -0400

Donald,

I suggest you add a reference to RFC 1326.

Cheers,
Andy

--------

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 00:04:22 -0400 (EDT)

Hi,

On Sun, 25 May 2003, Peter Deutsch wrote:

> Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 16:23:15 -0700
> From: Peter Deutsch <[email-masked]>

I have only myself to blame for not being more specific in the draft.  
A likely reason you might want to use NAT technology is because things
are already screwed up, with duplicate addresses at both ends of a
tunnel, due to the pre-existing use of NATs.

Thanks,
Donald