path: root/doc/rfc/rfc8462.txt

Internet Architecture Board (IAB)                              N. Rooney
Request for Comments: 8462                               S. Dawkins, Ed.
Category: Informational                                     October 2018
ISSN: 2070-1721


                    Report from the IAB Workshop on
         Managing Radio Networks in an Encrypted World (MaRNEW)

Abstract

   The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and GSM Association (GSMA) held
   a joint workshop on Managing Radio Networks in an Encrypted World
   (MaRNEW), on September 24-25, 2015.  This workshop aimed to discuss
   solutions for bandwidth optimization on mobile networks for encrypted
   content, as current solutions rely on unencrypted content, which is
   not indicative of the security needs of today's Internet users.  The
   workshop gathered IETF attendees, IAB members, and participants from
   various organizations involved in the telecommunications industry
   including original equipment manufacturers, content providers, and
   mobile network operators.

   The group discussed Internet encryption trends and deployment issues
   identified within the IETF and the privacy needs of users that should
   be adhered to.  Solutions designed around sharing data from the
   network to the endpoints and vice versa were then discussed; in
   addition, issues experienced when using current transport-layer
   protocols were also discussed.  Content providers and Content
   Delivery Networks (CDNs) gave their own views of their experiences
   delivering their content with mobile network operators.  Finally,
   technical responses to regulation were discussed to help the
   regulated industries relay the issues of impossible-to-implement or
   bad-for-privacy technologies back to regulators.

   A group of suggested solutions were devised, which will be discussed
   in various IETF groups moving forward.















Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
   and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
   provide for permanent record.  It represents the consensus of the
   Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  Documents approved for
   publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8462.

Copyright Notice

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

   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.
























Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1.  Understanding "Bandwidth Optimization"  . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Topics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.3.  Organization of This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.4.  Use of Note Well and the Chatham House Rule . . . . . . .   6
     1.5.  IETF and GSMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   2.  Scene-Setting Sessions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.1.  Scene Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.1.1.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.1.2.  Encryption Statistics and Radio Access Network
               Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.2.  Encryption Deployment Considerations  . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.3.  Awareness of User Choice (Privacy)  . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.  Network or Transport Solution Sessions  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.1.  Sending Data Up/Down for Network Management Benefits  . .  11
       3.1.1.  Competition, Cooperation, and Mobile Network
               Complexities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.  Transport Layer: Issues, Optimization, and Solutions  . . . .  13
   5.  Application-Layer Optimization, Caching, and CDNs . . . . . .  14
   6.  Technical Analysis and Response to Potential Regulatory
       Reaction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Suggested Principles and Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.1.  Better Collaboration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   8.  Since MaRNEW  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   11. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Appendix A.  Workshop Attendees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Appendix B.  Workshop Position Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28


















Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


1.  Introduction

   The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and GSM Association (GSMA) held
   a joint workshop on Managing Radio Networks in an Encrypted World
   (MaRNEW), on September 24-25, 2015.  This workshop aimed to discuss
   solutions for bandwidth optimization on mobile networks for encrypted
   content, as current solutions rely on unencrypted content, which is
   not indicative of the security needs of today's Internet users.

   Mobile networks have a set of properties that place a large emphasis
   on sophisticated bandwidth optimization.  The use of encryption is
   increasing on the Internet, which is positive for consumer and
   business privacy and security.  Many existing solutions for mobile
   bandwidth optimization primarily operate on non-encrypted
   communications; this can lead to performance issues being amplified
   on mobile networks.  The use of encryption on networks will continue
   to increase; with this understanding, the workshop aimed to
   understand how we can solve the issues of bandwidth optimization and
   performance on radio networks in this encrypted world.

1.1.  Understanding "Bandwidth Optimization"

   For the purposes of this workshop, bandwidth optimization encompasses
   a variety of technical topics related to traffic engineering,
   prioritization, optimization, and efficiency enhancements.  It also
   encompasses user-related topics such as specific subscription or
   billing models, and it may touch upon regulatory aspects or other
   issues relating to government-initiated regulatory concerns.

   The first category of bandwidth optimization includes the following:

   o  Caching

   o  Prioritization of interactive traffic over background traffic

   o  Per-user bandwidth limits

   The second category of bandwidth optimization may depend on one or
   more of the first category optimization strategies, but may, in
   particular, also encompass business-related topics such as content
   delivery arrangements with content providers.

   Finally, while not strictly speaking of traffic management, some
   networks employ policy-based filtering (e.g., requested parental
   controls), and many networks support some form of legal interception
   functionality per applicable laws.





Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   Many of these functions can continue as they are performed today,
   even with increased use of encryption.  Others are using methods that
   inspect parts of the communication that are not encrypted today, but
   will be encrypted, and these functions will have to be done
   differently in an increasingly encrypted Internet.

1.2.  Topics

   The workshop aimed to answer questions that focused on:

   o  understanding the bandwidth optimization use cases particular to
      radio networks;

   o  understanding existing approaches and how these do not work with
      encrypted traffic;

   o  understanding reasons why the Internet has not standardized
      support for lawful intercept and why mobile networks have;

   o  determining how to match traffic types with bandwidth optimization
      methods

   o  discussing minimal information to be shared to manage networks but
      ensure user security and privacy;

   o  developing new bandwidth optimization techniques and protocols
      within these new constraints;

   o  discussing the appropriate network layer(s) for each management
      function; and

   o  cooperative methods of bandwidth optimization and issues
      associated with these.

   The further aim was to gather architectural and engineering guidance
   on future work in the bandwidth optimization area based on the
   discussions around the proposed approaches.  The workshop also
   explored possible areas for standardization, e.g., new protocols that
   can aid bandwidth optimization whilst ensuring that user security is
   in line with new work in transport-layer protocols.

1.3.  Organization of This Report

   This workshop report summarizes the contributions to and discussions
   at the workshop, organized by topic.  The workshop began with scene-
   setting topics that covered the issues around deploying encryption,
   the increased need for privacy on the Internet, and setting a clear
   understanding that ciphertext should remain unbroken.  Later sessions



Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   focused on key solution areas; these included evolution on the
   transport layer and sending data up or down the path.  A session on
   application layers and CDNs aimed to highlight both issues and
   solutions experienced on the application layer.  The workshop ended
   with a session dedicated to discussing a technical response to
   regulation with regards to encryption.  The contributing documents
   identified the issues experienced with encryption on radio networks
   and suggested solutions.  Of the solutions suggested, some focused on
   transport evolution, some on trusted middleboxes, and others on
   collaborative data exchange.  Solutions were discussed within the
   sessions.  All accepted position papers and detailed transcripts of
   discussion are available at [MARNEW].

   The outcomes of the workshop are discussed in Sections 7 and 8; they
   discuss the progress made since the workshop toward each of the
   identified work items through the time this document was approved for
   publication.

   Report readers should be reminded that this workshop did not aim to
   discuss regulation or legislation, although policy topics were
   mentioned in discussions from time to time.

1.4.  Use of Note Well and the Chatham House Rule

   The workshop was conducted under the IETF [NOTE_WELL] with the
   exception of the "Technical Analysis and Response to Potential
   Regulatory Reaction" session, which was conducted under the
   [CHATHAM_HOUSE_RULE].

1.5.  IETF and GSMA

   The IETF and GSMA [GSMA] have different working practices, standards,
   and processes.  IETF is an open organization with community-driven
   standards, with the key aim of functionality and security for the
   Internet's users, while the GSMA is membership based and serves the
   needs of its membership base, most of whom are mobile network
   operators.

   Unlike IETF, GSMA makes few standards.  Within the telecommunications
   industry, standards are set in various divergent groups depending on
   their purpose.  Perhaps of most relevance to the bandwidth
   optimization topic here is the work of the 3rd Generation Partnership
   Project (3GPP) [SDO_3GPP], which works on radio network and core
   network standards.  3GPP members include mobile operators and
   original equipment manufacturers.






Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   One of the 3GPP standards relevant to this workshop is Policy and
   Charging Control QoS [PCC-QOS].  Traditionally, mobile networks have
   managed different applications and services based on the resources
   available and priorities given; for instance, emergency services have
   a top priority, data has a lower priority, and voice services are
   somewhere in-between.  3GPP defined the PCC-QoS mechanism to support
   this functionality, and this depends on unencrypted communications
   [EffectEncrypt].

2.  Scene-Setting Sessions

   Scene-setting sessions aimed to bring all attendees up to a basic
   understanding of the problem and the scope of the workshop.

   There were three scene-setting sessions:

   o  Section 2.1: Scene Setting

   o  Section 2.2: Encryption Deployment Considerations

   o  Section 2.3: Awareness of User Choice (Privacy)

2.1.  Scene Setting

   The telecommunications industry and Internet standards community are
   extremely different in terms of ethos and practices.  Both groups
   drive technical standards in their domain and build technical
   solutions with some policy-driven use cases.  These technologies, use
   cases, and technical implementations are different, and the
   motivators between the two industries are also diverse.

   To ensure all attendees were aligned with contributing to discussions
   and driving solutions, this "Scene Setting" session worked on
   generating a clear scope with all attendees involved.  In short, it
   was agreed that 1) ciphertext encrypted by one party and intended to
   be decrypted by a second party should not be decrypted by a third
   party in any solution, 2) the Radio Access Network (RAN) does
   experience issues with increased encrypted traffic, 3) the RAN issues
   need to be understood precisely, and 4) the goal is to improve user
   experience on the Internet.  Proposing new technical solutions based
   on presumed future regulation was not in scope.  The full scope is
   given below.









Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


2.1.1.  Scope

   The attendees identified and agreed to the scope described here.

   We should do the following:

   o  in discussion, assume that there is no broken crypto; ciphertext
      is increasingly common; congestion does need to be controlled (as
      do other transport issues); and network management, including
      efficient use of resources in RAN and elsewhere, has to work;

   o  identify how/why RAN is different for transport, and attempt to
      understand the complexities of RAN (i.e., how hard it is to
      manage) and why those complexities matter;

   o  identify the precise problems caused by increased use of
      encryption;

   o  identify players (in addition to end users), the resulting
      tensions, and how ciphertext changes those tensions;

   o  discuss how some solutions will be radically changed by ciphertext
      (it's ok to talk about that)

   o  assume that the best possible quality of experience for the end
      user is a goal; and lastly,

   o  for the next two days, aim to analyze the situation and identify
      specific achievable tasks that could be tackled in the IETF or
      GSMA (or elsewhere) and that improve the Internet given the
      assumptions above.

   We should not delve into the following:

   o  ways of doing interception, legal or not, for the reasons
      described in [RFC2804]; and,

   o  unpredictable political actions.

2.1.2.  Encryption Statistics and Radio Access Network Differences

   According to then-current statistics, attendees were shown that
   encrypted content reaches around 50% [STATE_BROWSER] [STATE_SERVER].
   The IAB is encouraging all IETF working groups to consider the effect
   encryption being "on by default" will have on new protocol work.  The
   IETF is also working on encryption at lower layers.  One recent





Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                     [Page 8]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   example of this work is opportunistic TCP encryption within the TCP
   Increased Security [TCPINC] Working Group.  The aims of these work
   items are greater security and privacy for end users and their data.

   Telecommunications networks often contain middleboxes that operators
   have previously considered to be trusted, but qualifying trust is
   difficult and should not be assumed.  Some interesting use cases
   exist with these middleboxes, such as anti-spam and malware
   detection, but these need to be balanced against their ability to
   open up cracks in the network for attacks such as pervasive
   monitoring.

   When operators increase the number of radio access network cells
   (base stations), this can improve the radio access network quality of
   service; however, it also adds to radio pollution.  This is one
   example of the balancing act required when devising radio access
   network architecture.

2.2.  Encryption Deployment Considerations

   Encryption across the Internet is on the rise.  However, some
   organizations and individuals that are mainly driven by commercial
   perspectives come across a common set of operational issues when
   deploying encryption.  [RFC8404] explains these network management
   function impacts, detailing areas around incident monitoring, access
   control management, and regulation on mobile networks.  The data was
   collected from various Internet players, including system and network
   administrators across enterprise, governmental organizations, and
   personal use.  The aim of the document is to gain an understanding of
   what is needed for technical solutions to these issues while
   maintaining security and privacy for users.  Attendees commented that
   worthwhile additions would be different business environments (e.g.,
   cloud environments) and service chaining.  Incident monitoring in
   particular was noted as a difficult issue to solve given the use of
   URLs in today's incident monitoring middleware.

   Some of these impacts to mobile networks can be resolved using
   different methods, and the [NETWORK_MANAGEMENT] document details
   these methods.  The document focuses heavily on methods to manage
   network traffic without breaching user privacy and security.

   By reviewing encryption deployment issues and the alternative methods
   of network management, MaRNEW attendees were made aware of the issues
   that affect radio networks, the deployment issues that are solvable
   and require no further action, and those issues that have not yet
   been solved but should be addressed within the workshop.





Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                     [Page 9]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


2.3.  Awareness of User Choice (Privacy)

   Some solutions intended to improve delivery of encrypted content
   could affect some or all of the privacy benefits that encryption
   provides.  Understanding user needs and desires for privacy is
   therefore important when designing these solutions.

   From a then-current study [Pew2014], 64% of users said concerns over
   privacy have increased, and 67% of mobile Internet users would like
   to do more to protect their privacy.  The World Wide Web Consortium
   (W3C) and IETF have both responded to user desires for better privacy
   by recommending encryption for new protocols and web technologies.
   Within the W3C, new security standards are emerging, and the design
   principles for HTML maintain that users are the stakeholders with the
   highest priority, followed by implementors and other stakeholders,
   which further enforces the "user first" principle.  Users also have
   certain security expectations from particular contexts and sometimes
   use new technologies to further protect their privacy, even if those
   technologies weren't initially developed for that purpose.

   Operators may deploy technologies that can either impact user privacy
   without being aware of those privacy implications or incorrectly
   assume that the benefits users gain from the new technology outweigh
   the loss of privacy.  If these technologies are necessary, they
   should be opt in.

   Internet stakeholders should understand the priority of other
   stakeholders.  Users should be considered the first priority.  Other
   stakeholders include implementors, developers, advertisers,
   operators, and other ISPs.  Some technologies, such as cookie use and
   JavaScript injection, have been abused by these parties.  This has
   caused some developers to encrypt content to circumvent these
   technologies that are seen as intrusive or bad for user privacy.

   If users and content providers are to opt in to network management
   services with negative privacy impacts, they should see clear value
   from using these services and understand the impacts of using these
   services.  Users should also have easy abilities to opt out.  Some
   users will always automatically click through consent requests, so
   any model relying on explicit consent is flawed for these users.
   Understanding the extent of "auto click-through" may improve
   decisions about the use of consent requests in the future.  One model
   (Cooperative Traffic Management) works as an agent of the user; by
   opting in, metadata can be shared.  Issues with this involve trust
   only being applied at endpoints.






Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 10]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


3.  Network or Transport Solution Sessions

   Network or Transport Solution Sessions discussed proposed solutions
   for managing encrypted traffic on radio access networks.  Most
   solutions focus on metadata sharing, whether this sharing takes place
   from the endpoint to the network, from the network to the endpoint,
   or cooperatively in both directions.  Transport-layer protocol
   evolution could be another approach to solve some of the issues radio
   access networks experience, which cause them to rely on network
   management middleboxes.  By removing problems at the transport layer,
   reliance on expensive and complex middleboxes could decrease.

3.1.  Sending Data Up/Down for Network Management Benefits

   Collaboration between network elements and endpoints could bring
   about better content distribution.  A number of suggestions were
   given; these included the following:

   o  Mobile Throughput Guidance [MTG]: exchanges metadata between
      network elements and endpoints via TCP options.  It also allows
      for better understanding of how the transport protocol behaves and
      further improves the user experience, although additional work on
      MTG is still required.

   o  Session Protocol for User Datagrams [SPUD]: a UDP-based
      encapsulation protocol to allow explicit cooperation with
      middleboxes while using, new encrypted transport protocols.

   o  Network Status API: an API for operators to share congestion
      status or the state of a cell before an application starts sending
      data that could allow applications to change their behavior.

   o  Traffic Classification: classifying traffic and adding these
      classifications as metadata for analysis throughout the network.
      This idea has trust and privacy implications.

   o  Congestion Exposure [CONEX]: a mechanism where senders inform the
      network about the congestion encountered by previous packets on
      the same flow, in-band at the IP layer.

   o  Latency versus Bandwidth: a bit that allows the content provider
      to indicate whether higher bandwidth or lower latency is of
      greater priority and allows the network to react based on that
      indication.  Where this bit resides in the protocol stack and how
      it is authenticated would need to be decided.






Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 11]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   o  No Network Management Tools: disabling all network management
      tools from the network and relying only on end-to-end protocols to
      manage congestion.

   o  Flow Queue Controlled Delay (FQ-CoDel) [FLOWQUEUE]: a hybrid
      packet scheduler / Active Queue Management (AQM) [RFC7567]
      algorithm aiming to reduce bufferbloat and latency.  FQ-CoDel
      manages packets from multiple flows and reduces the impact of
      head-of-line blocking from bursty traffic.

   Some of these suggestions rely on signaling from network elements to
   endpoints.  Others aim to create "hop-by-hop" solutions, which could
   be more aligned with how congestion is managed today but with greater
   privacy implications.

   Still others rely on signaling from endpoints to network elements.
   Some of these rely on implicit signaling and others on explicit
   signaling.  Some workshop attendees agreed that relying on
   applications to explicitly declare the quality of service they
   require was not a good path forward given the lack of success with
   this model in the past.

3.1.1.  Competition, Cooperation, and Mobile Network Complexities

   One of the larger issues in sharing data about the problems
   encountered with encrypted traffic in wireless networks is the matter
   of competition; network operators are reluctant to relinquish data
   about their own networks because it contains information that is
   valuable to competitors, and application providers wish to protect
   their users and reveal as little information as possible to the
   network.  Some people think that if middleboxes were authenticated
   and invoked explicitly, this would be an improvement over current
   transparent middleboxes that intercept traffic without endpoint
   consent.  Some workshop attendees suggested any exchange of
   information should be bidirectional in an effort to improve
   cooperation between the elements.  A robust incentive framework could
   provide a solution to these issues or at least help mitigate them.

   The radio access network is complex because it must deal with a
   number of conflicting demands.  Base stations reflect this
   environment, and information within these base stations can be of
   value to other entities on the path.  Some workshop participants
   thought solutions for managing congestion on radio networks should
   involve the base station if possible.  For instance, understanding
   how the radio resource controller and AQM [RFC7567] interact (or
   don't interact) could provide valuable information for solving





Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 12]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   issues.  Although many workshop attendees agreed that even though
   there is a need to understand the base station, not all agreed that
   the base station should be part of a future solution.

   Some suggested solutions were based on network categorization and on
   providing this information to the protocols or endpoints.  Completely
   categorizing radio networks could be impossible due to their
   complexity, but categorizing essential network properties could be
   possible and valuable.

4.  Transport Layer: Issues, Optimization, and Solutions

   TCP has been the dominant transport protocol since TCP/IP replaced
   the Network Control Protocol (NCP) on the ARPANET in March 1983.  TCP
   was originally devised to work on a specific network model that did
   not anticipate the high error rates and highly variable available
   bandwidth scenarios experienced on modern radio access networks.

   Furthermore, new network elements have been introduced (NATs and
   network devices with large buffers creating bufferbloat), and
   considerable peer-to-peer traffic is competing with traditional
   client-server traffic.  Consequently, the transport layer today has
   requirements beyond what TCP was designed to meet.  TCP has other
   issues as well; too many services rely on TCP and only TCP, blocking
   deployment of new transport protocols like the Stream Control
   Transmission Protocol (SCTP) and Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
   (DCCP).  This means that true innovation on the transport layer
   becomes difficult because deployment issues are more complicated than
   just building a new protocol.

   The IETF is trying to solve these issues through the IAB's IP Stack
   Evolution program, and the first step in this program is to collect
   data.  Network and content providers can provide data including: the
   cost of encryption, the advantages of network management tools, the
   deployment of protocols, and the effects when network management
   tools are disabled.  For mostly competitive reasons, network
   operators do not tend to reveal network information and so are
   unlikely to donate this information freely to the IETF.  The GSMA is
   in a position to try to collect this data and anonymize it before
   bringing it to IETF, which should alleviate the network operator
   worries but still provide IETF with some usable data.

   Although congestion is only detected when packet loss is encountered
   and better methods based on detecting congestion would be beneficial,
   a considerable amount of work has already been done on TCP,
   especially innovation in bandwidth management and congestion control.





Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 13]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   Furthermore, although the deficiencies of TCP are often considered
   key issues in the evolution of the Internet protocol stack, the main
   route to resolve these issues may not be a new TCP, but an evolved
   stack.  Some workshop participants suggested that SPUD [SPUD] and
   Information-Centric Networking (ICN) [RFC7476] may help here.  Quick
   UDP Internet Connection [QUIC] engineers stated that the problems
   solved by QUIC are general problems, rather than TCP issues.  This
   view was not shared by all attendees of the workshop.  Moreover, TCP
   has had some improvements in the last few years, which may mean some
   of the network lower layers should be investigated to see whether
   improvements can be made.

5.  Application-Layer Optimization, Caching, and CDNs

   Many discussions on the effects of encrypted traffic on radio access
   networks happen between implementers and the network operators.  This
   session aimed to gather the opinions of the content and caching
   providers regarding their experiences running over mobile networks,
   the quality of experience their users expect, and the content and
   caching that providers would like to achieve by working with or using
   the mobile network.

   Content providers explained how even though this workshop cited
   encrypted data over radio access networks as the main issue, the real
   issue is network management generally, and all actors (applications
   providers, networks, and devices) need to work together to overcome
   these general network management issues.  Content providers explained
   how they assume the mobile networks are standards compliant.  When
   the network is not standards compliant (e.g., using non-standards-
   compliant intermediaries), content providers can experience real
   costs as users contact their support centers to report issues that
   are difficult to test for and resolve.

   Content providers cited other common issues concerning data traffic
   over mobile networks.  Data subscription limits (known as "caps")
   cause issues for users; users are confused about how data caps work
   or are unsure how expensive media is and how much data it consumes.
   Developers build products on networks not indicative of the networks
   their customers are using, and not every organization has the
   finances to build a caching infrastructure.

   Strongly related to content providers, content owners consider CDNs
   to be trusted deliverers of content, and CDNs have shown great
   success in fixed networks.  Now that more traffic is moving to mobile
   networks, there is a need to place caches near the user at the edge
   of the mobile network.  Placing caches at the edge of the mobile
   network is a solution, but it requires standards developed by content
   providers and mobile network operators.  The IETF's CDN



Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 14]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   Interconnection [CDNI] Working Group aims to allow global CDNs to
   interoperate with mobile CDNs, but this causes huge issues for the
   caching of encrypted data between these CDNs.  Some CDNs are
   experimenting with approaches like "Keyless SSL" [KeylessSSL] to
   enable safer storage of content without passing private keys to the
   CDN.  Blind Caching [BLIND_CACHING] is another proposal aimed at
   caching encrypted content closer to the user and managing the
   authentication at the original content provider servers.

   At the end of the session, each panelist was asked to identify one
   key collaborative work item.  Work items named were: evolving to
   cache encrypted content, using one bit for latency / bandwidth trade-
   off (explained below), better collaboration between the network and
   application, better metrics to aid troubleshooting and innovation,
   and indications from the network to allow the application to adapt.

6.  Technical Analysis and Response to Potential Regulatory Reaction

   This session was conducted under the Chatham House Rule.  The session
   aimed to discuss regulatory and political issues, but not their worth
   or need, and to understand the laws that exist and how technologists
   can properly respond to them.

   Mobile networks are regulated; compliance is mandatory and can incur
   costs on the mobile network operator, while non-compliance can result
   in service license revocation in some nations.  Regulation does vary
   geographically.  Some regulations are court orders and others are
   self-imposed regulations, for example, "block lists" of websites such
   as the Internet Watch Foundation [IWF] list.  Operators are not
   expected to decrypt sites, so those encrypted sites will not be
   blocked because of content.

   Parental-control-type filters also exist on the network and are
   easily bypassed today, vastly limiting their effectiveness.  Better
   solutions would allow for users to easily set these restrictions
   themselves.  Other regulations are also hard to meet, such as user
   data patterns, or will become harder to collect, such as Internet of
   Things (IoT) cases.  Most attendees agreed that if a government
   cannot get information it needs (and is legally entitled to have)
   from network operators, they will approach content providers.  Some
   governments are aware of the impact of encryption and are working
   with, or trying to work with, content providers.  The IAB has
   concluded that blocking and filtering can be done at the endpoints of
   the communication.







Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 15]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   Not all of these regulations apply to the Internet, and the Internet
   community is not always aware of their existence.  Collectively, the
   Internet community can work with GSMA and 3GPP and act together to
   alleviate the risk imposed by encrypted traffic.  Some participants
   expressed concern that governments might require operators to provide
   information that they no longer have the ability to provide because
   previously unencrypted traffic is now being encrypted, and this might
   expose operators to new liability, but no specific examples were
   given during the workshop.  A suggestion from some attendees was that
   if any new technical solutions are necessary, they should easily be
   "switched off".

   Some mobile network operators are producing transparency reports
   covering regulations including lawful intercept.  Operators who have
   done this already are encouraging others to do the same.

7.  Suggested Principles and Solutions

   Based on the talks and discussions throughout the workshop, a set of
   suggested principles and solutions has been collected.  This is not
   an exhaustive list, and no attempt was made to come to consensus
   during the workshop, so there are likely at least some participants
   who would not agree with any particular principle listed below.  The
   list is a union of participant thinking, not an intersection.

   o  Encrypted Traffic: Any solution should encourage and support
      encrypted traffic.

   o  Flexibility: Radio access network qualities vary vastly, and the
      network needs of content can differ significantly, so any new
      solution should be flexible across either the network type,
      content type, or both.

   o  Privacy: New solutions should not introduce new ways for
      information to be discovered and attributed to individual users.

   o  Minimum data only for collaborative work: User data, application
      data, and network data all need protection, so new solutions
      should use minimal information to make a working solution.

   A collection of solutions suggested by various participants during
   the workshop is given below.  Inclusion in this list does not imply
   that other workshop participants agreed.  Again, the list is a union
   of proposed solutions, not an intersection.

   o  Evolving TCP or evolution on the transport layer: This could take
      a number of forms, and some of this work is already underway
      within the IETF.



Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 16]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   o  Congestion Control: Many attendees cited congestion control as a
      key issue.  Further analysis, investigation, and work could be
      done in this space.

   o  Sprout [SPROUT]: Researched at MIT, Sprout is a transport protocol
      for applications that desire high throughput and low delay.

   o  PCC [PCC]: Performance-oriented Congestion Control is a new
      architecture that aims for consistent high performance, even in
      challenging scenarios.  PCC endpoints observe the connection
      between their actions and their known performance, which allows
      them to adapt their actions.

   o  CDNs and Caches: This suggests that placing caches closer to the
      edge of the radio network, as close as possible to the mobile
      user, or making more intelligent CDNs, would result in faster
      content delivery and less strain on the network.

   o  Blind Caching [BLIND_CACHING]: This is a proposal for caching of
      encrypted content.

   o  CDN Improvements: This includes Keyless SSL and better CDN
      placement.

   o  Mobile Throughput Guidance [MTG]: This is a mechanism and protocol
      elements that allow the cellular network to provide near real-time
      information on capacity available to the TCP server.

   o  One Bit for Latency / Bandwidth Trade-Off: This suggests
      determining whether using a single bit in an unencrypted transport
      header to distinguish between traffic that the sender prefers to
      be queued and traffic that the sender would prefer to drop rather
      than delay provides additional benefits beyond what can be
      achieved without this signaling.

   o  Base Station: Some suggestions involved using the base station,
      but this was not defined in detail.  The base station holds the
      radio resource controller and scheduler, which could provide a
      place to host solutions, or data from the base station could help
      in devising new solutions.

   o  Identify Traffic Types via 5-Tuple: Information from the 5-tuple
      could provide understanding of the traffic type, and network
      management appropriate for that traffic type could then be
      applied.






Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 17]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   o  Heuristics: Networks can sometimes identify traffic types by
      observing characteristics, such as data flow rate, and then apply
      network management to these identified flows.  This is not
      recommended, as categorizations can be incorrect.

   o  APIs: An API for operators to share congestion status or the state
      of a cell before an application starts sending data could allow
      applications to change their behavior.  Alternatively, an API
      could provide the network with information on the data type,
      allowing appropriate network management for that data type;
      however, this method exposes privacy issues.

   o  Standard approach for the operator to offer services to Content
      Providers: Mobile network operators could provide caching services
      or other services for content providers to use for faster and
      smoother content delivery.

   o  AQM [RFC7567] and ECN [RFC3168] deployments: Queuing and
      congestion management methods have existed for some time in the
      form of AQM, ECN, and others, which can help the transport and
      Internet protocol layers adapt to congestion faster.

   o  Trust Model or Trust Framework: Some solutions in this area (e.g.,
      SPUD) have a reliance on trust when content providers or the
      network are being asked to add classifiers to their traffic.

   o  Keyless SSL [KeylessSSL]: This allows content providers to
      maintain their private keys on a key server and host the content
      elsewhere (e.g., on a CDN).  This could become standardized in the
      IETF.  [LURK]

   o  Meaningful capacity sharing: This includes the ConEx [CONEX] work,
      which exposes information about congestion to the network nodes.

   o  Hop-by-hop: Some suggestions offer hop-by-hop methods that allow
      nodes to adapt flow given the qualities of the networks around
      them and the congestion they are experiencing.

   o  Metrics and metric standards: In order to evolve current protocols
      to be best suited to today's networks, data is needed about
      current network conditions, protocol deployments, packet traces,
      and middlebox behavior.  Beyond this, proper testing and debugging
      on networks could provide great insight for stack evolution.

   o  5G: Mobile operator standards bodies are in the process of setting
      the requirements for 5G.  Requirements for network management
      could be added.




Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 18]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   In the workshop, attendees identified other areas where greater
   understanding could help the standards process.  These were
   identified as:

   o  greater understanding of the RAN within the IETF;

   o  reviews and comments on 3GPP perspective; and,

   o  how to do congestion control in the RAN.

7.1.  Better Collaboration

   Throughout the workshop, attendees placed emphasis on the need for
   better collaboration between the IETF and telecommunications bodies
   and organizations.  The workshop was one such way to achieve this,
   but the good work and relationships built in the workshop should
   continue so the two groups can work on solutions that are better for
   both technologies and users.

8.  Since MaRNEW

   Since MaRNEW, a number of activities have taken place in various IETF
   working groups and in groups external to IETF.  The Alternatives to
   Content Classification for Operator Resource Deployment (ACCORD) BoF
   was held at IETF 95 in November 2015, which brought the workshop
   discussion to the wider IETF audiences by providing an account of the
   discussions that had taken place within the workshop and highlighting
   key areas to progress on.  Key areas to progress on and an update on
   their current status are as follows:

   o  The collection of usable metrics and data were requested by a
      number of MaRNEW attendees, especially for use within the IRTF
      Measurement and Analysis for Protocols (MAP) Research Group; this
      data has been difficult to collect due to the closed nature of
      mobile network operators.

   o  Understanding impediments to protocol stack evolution has
      continued within the IAB's IP Stack Evolution program and
      throughout transport-related IETF working groups such as the
      Transport Area Working Group (TSVWG).

   o  The Mobile Throughput Guidance document [MTG] has entered into a
      testing and data collection phase, although further advancements
      in transport technologies (QUIC, among others) may have stalled
      efforts in TCP-related proposals.






Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 19]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   o  Work on proposals for caching encrypted content continue, albeit
      with some security flaws that proponents are working on further
      proposals to fix.  Most often, these are discussed within the IETF
      HTTPbis Working Group.

   o  The Path Layer UDP Substrate (PLUS) BOF at IETF 96 in July 2016
      did not result in the formation of a working group, as attendees
      expressed concern on the privacy issues associated with the
      proposed data-sharing possibilities of the shim layer.

   o  The Limited Use of Remote Keys (LURK) BOF at IETF 96 in July 2016
      did not result in the formation of a working group because the BOF
      identified more problems with the presumed approach than
      anticipated.

   The most rewarding output of MaRNEW is perhaps the most intangible.
   MaRNEW gave two rather divergent industry groups the opportunity to
   connect and discuss common technologies and issues affecting users
   and operations.  Mobile network providers and key Internet engineers
   and experts have developed a greater collaborative relationship to
   aid development of further standards that work across networks in a
   secure manner.

9.  Security Considerations

   This document is an IAB report from a workshop on interactions
   between network security, especially privacy, and network
   performance.

   It does not affect the security of the Internet, taken on its own.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

11.  Informative References

   [BLIND_CACHING]
              Thomson, M., Eriksson, G., and C. Holmberg, "Caching
              Secure HTTP Content using Blind Caches", Work in
              Progress, draft-thomson-http-bc-01, October 2016.

   [CDNI]     IETF, "Content Delivery Networks Interconnection (cdni)",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/cdni/charter/>.

   [CHATHAM_HOUSE_RULE]
              Chatham House, "Chatham House Rule | Chatham House",
              <https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule>.



Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 20]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   [CONEX]    IETF, "Congestion Exposure (conex) - Documents",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/conex/documents/>.

   [EffectEncrypt]
              Xiong, C. and M. Patel, "The effect of encrypted traffic
              on the QoS mechanisms in cellular networks", August 2015,
              <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/
              MaRNEW_1_paper_25.pdf>.

   [FLOWQUEUE]
              Hoeiland-Joergensen, T., McKenney, P., Taht, D., Gettys,
              J., and E. Dumazet, "FlowQueue-Codel", Work in Progress,
              draft-hoeiland-joergensen-aqm-fq-codel-01, November 2014.

   [GSMA]     GSMA, "GSMA Homepage", <http://gsma.com>.

   [IWF]      IWF, "Internet Watch Foundation Homepage",
              <https://www.iwf.org.uk/>.

   [KeylessSSL]
              Sullivan, N., "Keyless SSL: The Nitty Gritty Technical
              Details", September 2014, <https://blog.cloudflare.com/
              keyless-ssl-the-nitty-gritty-technical-details/>.

   [LURK]     Migault, D., Ma, K., Salz, R., Mishra, S., and O. Dios,
              "LURK TLS/DTLS Use Cases", Work in Progress,
              draft-mglt-lurk-tls-use-cases-02, June 2016.

   [MARNEW]   IAB, "Managing Radio Networks in an Encrypted World
              (MaRNEW) Workshop 2015",
              <https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/marnew/>.

   [MTG]      Jain, A., Terzis, A., Flinck, H., Sprecher, N.,
              Arunachalam, S., Smith, K., Devarapalli, V., and R. Yanai,
              "Mobile Throughput Guidance Inband Signaling Protocol",
              Work in Progress, draft-flinck-mobile-throughput-guidance-
              04, March 2017.

   [NETWORK_MANAGEMENT]
              Smith, K., "Network management of encrypted traffic", Work
              in Progress, draft-smith-encrypted-traffic-management-05,
              May 2016.

   [NOTE_WELL]
              IETF, "IETF Note Well",
              <https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html>.





Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 21]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   [PCC]      Dong, M., Li, Q., Zarchy, D., Brighten Godfrey, P., and M.
              Schapira, "PCC: Re-architecting Congestion Control for
              Consistent High Performance", Proceedings of the 12th
              USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and
              Implementation (NSDI '15), USENIX Association, May 2015,
              <https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/nsdi15/
              nsdi15-paper-dong.pdf>.

   [PCC-QOS]  3GPP, "Policy and charging control signalling flows and
              Quality of Service (QoS) parameter mapping", 3GPP TS
              29.213, version 15.3.0, Release 15, June 2018,
              <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/29213.htm>.

   [Pew2014]  Madden, M., "Public Perceptions of Privacy and Security in
              the Post-Snowden Era", November 2014,
              <http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/11/12/
              public-privacy-perceptions/>.

   [QUIC]     Hamilton, R., Iyengar, J., Swett, I., and A. Wilk, "QUIC:
              A UDP-Based Secure and Reliable Transport for HTTP/2",
              Work in Progress, draft-tsvwg-quic-protocol-02, January
              2016.

   [RFC2804]  IAB and IESG, "IETF Policy on Wiretapping", RFC 2804,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2804, May 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2804>.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

   [RFC7476]  Pentikousis, K., Ed., Ohlman, B., Corujo, D., Boggia, G.,
              Tyson, G., Davies, E., Molinaro, A., and S. Eum,
              "Information-Centric Networking: Baseline Scenarios",
              RFC 7476, DOI 10.17487/RFC7476, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7476>.

   [RFC7567]  Baker, F., Ed. and G. Fairhurst, Ed., "IETF
              Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management",
              BCP 197, RFC 7567, DOI 10.17487/RFC7567, July 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7567>.

   [RFC8404]  Moriarty, K., Ed. and A. Morton, Ed., "Effects of
              Pervasive Encryption on Operators", RFC 8404,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8404, July 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8404>.




Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 22]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   [SDO_3GPP] 3GPP, "3GPP Homepage", <http://www.3gpp.org/>.

   [SPROUT]   Winstein, K., Sivaraman, A., and H. Balakrishnan,
              "Stochastic Forecasts Achieve High Throughput and Low
              Delay over Cellular Networks", 10th USENIX Symposium on
              Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI
              '13), USENIX Association, April 2013,
              <https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/nsdi13/
              nsdi13-final113.pdf>.

   [SPUD]     IETF, "Session Protocol for User Datagrams (spud)",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/spud/about/>.

   [STATE_BROWSER]
              Barnes, R., "Some observations of TLS in the web", July
              2015, <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/
              slides-93-saag-3.pdf>.

   [STATE_SERVER]
              Salz, R., "Some observations of TLS in the web", July
              2015, <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/
              slides-93-saag-4.pdf>.

   [TCPINC]   "TCP Increased Security (tcpinc)",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tcpinc/charter/>.


























Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 23]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


Appendix A.  Workshop Attendees

   o  Rich Salz, Akamai

   o  Aaron Falk, Akamai

   o  Vinay Kanitkar, Akamai

   o  Julien Maisonneuve, Alcatel Lucent

   o  Dan Druta, AT&T

   o  Humberto La Roche, Cisco

   o  Thomas Anderson, Cisco

   o  Paul Polakos, Cisco

   o  Marcus Ihlar, Ericsson

   o  Szilveszter Nadas, Ericsson

   o  John Mattsson, Ericsson

   o  Salvatore Loreto, Ericsson

   o  Blake Matheny, Facebook

   o  Andreas Terzis, Google

   o  Jana Iyengar, Google

   o  Natasha Rooney, GSMA

   o  Istvan Lajtos, GSMA

   o  Emma Wood, GSMA

   o  Jianjie You, Huawei

   o  Chunshan Xiong, Huawei

   o  Russ Housley, IAB

   o  Mary Barnes, IAB

   o  Joe Hildebrand, IAB / Cisco




Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 24]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   o  Ted Hardie, IAB / Google

   o  Robert Sparks, IAB / Oracle

   o  Spencer Dawkins, IETF AD

   o  Benoit Claise, IETF AD / Cisco

   o  Kathleen Moriarty, IETF AD / EMC

   o  Barry Leiba, IETF AD / Huawei

   o  Ben Campbell, IETF AD / Oracle

   o  Stephen Farrell, IETF AD / Trinity College Dublin

   o  Jari Arkko, IETF Chair / Ericsson

   o  Karen O'Donoghue, ISOC

   o  Phil Roberts, ISOC

   o  Olaf Kolkman, ISOC

   o  Christian Huitema, Microsoft

   o  Patrick McManus, Mozilla

   o  Dirk Kutscher, NEC Europe Network Laboratories

   o  Mark Watson, Netflix

   o  Martin Peylo, Nokia

   o  Mohammed Dadas, Orange

   o  Diego Lopez, Telefonica

   o  Matteo Varvello, Telefonica

   o  Zubair Shafiq, The University of Iowa

   o  Vijay Devarapalli, Vasona Networks

   o  Sanjay Mishra, Verizon

   o  Gianpaolo Scassellati, Vimplecom




Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 25]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   o  Kevin Smith, Vodafone

   o  Wendy Seltzer, W3C

Appendix B.  Workshop Position Papers

   o  Mohammed Dadas, Emile Stephan, Mathilde Cayla, Iuniana Oprescu,
      "Cooperation Framework between Application layer and Lower Layers"
      at <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/
      MaRNEW_1_paper_33.pdf>

   o  Julien Maisonneuve, Vijay Gurbani, and Thomas Fossati, "The
      security pendulum" at <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/
      IAB-uploads/2015/08/MaRNEW_1_paper_4.pdf>

   o  Martin Peylo, "Enabling Secure QoE Measures for Internet
      Applications over Radio Networks is a MUST" at
      <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/
      MaRNEW_1_paper_32.pdf>

   o  Vijay Devarapalli, "The Bandwidth Balancing Act: Managing QoE as
      encrypted services change the traffic optimization game" at
      <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/
      MaRNEW_1_paper_10.pdf>

   o  Humberto J.  La Roche, "Use Cases for Communicating End-Points in
      Mobile Network Middleboxes" at <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/
      IAB-uploads/2015/08/MaRNEW_1_paper_12.pdf>

   o  Patrick McManus and Richard Barnes, "User Consent and Security as
      a Public Good" at <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/
      IAB-uploads/2015/08/MaRNEW_1_paper_13.pdf>

   o  Iuniana Oprescu, Jon Peterson, and Natasha Rooney, "A Framework
      for Consent and Permissions in Mediating TLS" at
      <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/
      MaRNEW_1_paper_31.pdf>

   o  Jari Arkko and Goran Eriksson, "Characteristics of Traffic Type
      Changes and Their Architectural Implications" at
      <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/
      MaRNEW_1_paper_15.pdf>

   o  Szilveszter Nadas and Attila Mihaly, "Concept for Cooperative
      Traffic Management" at <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/
      IAB-uploads/2015/08/MaRNEW_1_paper_16.pdf>





Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 26]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   o  Gianpaolo Scassellati, "Vimpelcom Position paper for MaRNEW
      Workshop" at <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/09/
      MaRNEW_1_paper_17.pdf>

   o  Mirja Kuhlewind, Dirk Kutscher, and Brian Trammell, "Enabling
      Traffic Management without DPI" at <https://www.iab.org/
      wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/MaRNEW_1_paper_18.pdf>

   o  Andreas Terzis and Chris Bentzel, "Sharing network state with
      application endpoints" at <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/
      IAB-uploads/2015/08/MaRNEW_1_paper_19.pdf>

   o  Marcus Ihlar, Salvatore Loreto, and Robert Skog, "The needed
      existence of PEP in an encrypted world" at <https://www.iab.org/
      wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/MaRNEW_1_paper_20.pdf>

   o  John Mattsson, "Network Operation in an All-Encrypted World" at
      <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/
      MaRNEW_1_paper_21.pdf>

   o  Dirk Kutscher, Giovanna Carofiglio, Luca Muscariello, and Paul
      Polakos, "Maintaining Efficiency and Privacy in Mobile Networks
      through Information-Centric Networking" at <https://www.iab.org/
      wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/MaRNEW_1_paper_23.pdf>

   o  Chunshan Xiong and Milan Patel, "The effect of encrypted traffic
      on the QoS mechanisms in cellular networks" at
      <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/
      MaRNEW_1_paper_25.pdf>

   o  Thomas Anderson, Peter Bosch, and Alessandro Duminuco, "Bandwidth
      Control and Regulation in Mobile Networks via SDN/NFV-Based
      Platforms" at <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/
      MaRNEW_1_paper_26.pdf>

   o  Karen O'Donoghue and Phil Roberts, "Barriers to Deployment:
      Probing the Potential Differences in Developed and Developing
      Infrastructure" at <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/
      IAB-uploads/2015/08/MaRNEW_1_paper_27.pdf>

   o  Wendy Seltzer, "Security, Privacy, and Performance Considerations
      for the Mobile Web" at <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/
      IAB-uploads/2015/08/MaRNEW_1_paper_28.pdf>

   o  Jianjie You, Hanyu Wei, and Huaru Yang, "Use Case Analysis and
      Potential Bandwidth Optimization Methods for Encrypted Traffic" at
      <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/
      MaRNEW_1_paper_29.pdf>



Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 27]
^L
RFC 8462                         MaRNEW                     October 2018


   o  Mangesh Kasbekar and Vinay Kanitkar, "CDNs, Network Services and
      Encrypted Traffic" at <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/
      IAB-uploads/2015/08/MaRNEW_1_paper_30.pdf>

   o  Yves Hupe, Claude Rocray, and Mark Santelli, "Providing
      Optimization of Encrypted HTTP Traffic" at <https://www.iab.org/
      wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/MaRNEW_1_paper_341.pdf>

   o  M. Zubair Shafiq, "Tracking Mobile Video QoE in the Encrypted
      Internet" at <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/08/
      MaRNEW_1_paper_35.pdf>

   o  Kevin Smith, "Encryption and government regulation: what happens
      now?" at <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/09/
      MaRNEW_1_paper_1.pdf>

Acknowledgements

   Stephen Farrell reviewed this report in draft form and provided
   copious comments and suggestions.

   Barry Leiba provided some clarifications on specific discussions
   about Lawful Intercept that took place during the workshop.

   Bob Hinden and Warren Kumari provided comments and suggestions during
   the IAB Call for Comments.

   Amelia Andersdotter and Shivan Kaul Sahib provided comments from the
   Human Rights Review Team during the IAB Call for Comments.

Authors' Addresses

   Natasha Rooney
   GSMA

   Email: nrooney@gsma.com
   URI:   https://gsma.com


   Spencer Dawkins (editor)
   Wonder Hamster

   Email: spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com








Rooney & Dawkins              Informational                    [Page 28]
^L