Internet DRAFT - draft-iab-m-ten-workshop
draft-iab-m-ten-workshop
Network Working Group M. Knodel
Internet-Draft Center for Democracy & Technology
Intended status: Informational W. Hardaker
Expires: 15 February 2024
T. Pauly
14 August 2023
Report from the IAB workshop on Management Techniques in Encrypted
Networks (M-TEN)
draft-iab-m-ten-workshop-02
Abstract
The “Management Techniques in Encrypted Networks (M-TEN)” workshop
was convened by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) from 17 October
2022 to 19 October 2022 as a three-day online meeting. The workshop
was organized in three parts to discuss ways to improve network
management techniques in support of even broader adoption of
encryption on the Internet. This report summarizes the workshop's
discussion and identifies topics that warrant future work and
consideration.
Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the
workshop. The views and positions documented in this report are
those of the expressed during the workshop by participants and do not
necessarily reflect IAB views and positions.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at
https://intarchboard.github.io/m-ten-workshop-public/draft-iab-m-ten-
workshop.html. Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-m-ten-workshop/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/intarchboard/m-ten-workshop-public.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
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 15 February 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. About this workshop report content . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Workshop Scope and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. “Where we are” - Requirements and Passive Observations . 4
2.1.1. Traffic classification and network management . . . . 4
2.1.2. Preventing traffic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.3. Users and privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. “Where we want to go” - Collaboration Principles . . . . 7
2.2.1. First party collaboration for network management . . 7
2.2.2. Second and third party collaboration for network
management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.3. Visible, optional network management . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3. “How we get there” - Collaboration Use cases . . . . . . 10
2.3.1. Establishing expected contracts to enable security
management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.2. Zero Knowledge Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.3. Red Rover - A collaborative approach to content
filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Position Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
A.1. Motivations and principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.2. Classification and identification of encrypted traffic . 16
A.3. Ideas for collaboration and coordination between devices
and networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.4. Other background material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix B. Workshop participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix C. Program Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
User privacy and security are constantly being improved by
increasingly strong and more widely deployed encryption. This
workshop aims to discuss ways to improve network management
techniques in support of even broader adoption of encryption on the
Internet.
Network management techniques need to evolve to work effectively and
reliably in the presence of ubiquitous traffic encryption and support
techniques that enhance user privacy. In an all-encrypted network,
it is not viable to rely on unencrypted metadata for network
monitoring and security functions, troubleshooting devices, and
passive traffic measurements. New approaches are needed to track
network behaviors, e.g., by directly cooperating with endpoints and
applications, increasing use of in-band telemetry, increasing use of
active measurement approaches, and privacy-preserving inference
techniques.
The aim of this IAB online workshop from October 17-19, 2022, has
been to provide a platform to explore the interaction between network
management and traffic encryption and initiate new work on
collaborative approaches that promote security and user privacy while
supporting operational requirements. As such the workshop addressed
the following questions:
* What are actionable network management requirements?
* Who is willing to work on collaborative solutions?
* What are the starting points for collaborative solutions?
1.1. About this workshop report content
This document is a report on the proceedings of the workshop. The
views and positions documented in this report are those of the
expressed during the workshop by participants and do not necessarily
reflect IAB views and positions.
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
Furthermore, the content of the report comes from presentations given
by workshop participants and notes taken during the discussions,
without interpretation or validation. Thus, the content of this
report follows the flow and dialog of the workshop but does not
attempt to capture a consensus.
2. Workshop Scope and Discussion
The workshop was organized across three days with all-group
discussion slots, one per day. The following topic areas were
identified and the program committee organized paper submissions into
three main themes for each of the three discussion slots. During
each discussion, those papers were presented sequentially with open
discussion held at the end of each day.
2.1. “Where we are” - Requirements and Passive Observations
The first day of the workshop agenda focused on the existing state of
the relationship between network management and encrypted traffic
from various angles. Presentations ranged from discussing
classifiers using machine-learning to recognize traffic, to advanced
techniques for evading traffic analysis, to user privacy
considerations.
After an introduction that covered the goals of the workshop and the
starting questions (as described in Section 1), there were four
presentations, followed by open discussion.
2.1.1. Traffic classification and network management
Many existing network management techiques are passive in nature:
they don't rely on an explicit signals from end hosts to negotiate
with network middleboxes, but instead rely on inspecting packets to
recognize traffic and apply various policies. Traffic
classification, as a passive technique, is being challenged by
increasing encryption.
Traffic classification is commonly performed by networks to infer
what applications and services are being used. This information is
in turn used for capacity and resource planning, Quality-of-Service
(QoS) monitoring, traffic prioritization, network access control,
identity management, and malware detection. However, since
classification traditionally relies on recognizing unencrypted
properties of packets in a flow, increasing encryption of traffic can
decrease the effectiveness of classification.
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
The amount of classification that can be performed on traffic also
provides a useful insight onto how "leaky" the protocols used by
applications are, and points to areas where information is visible to
any observer, which may be malicious or not.
Traditionally, classification has been based on experts crafting
specific rules, but there is also a move toward using maching
learning to recognize patterns. "Deep learning" machine learning
models generally rely on analyzing a large set of traffic over time,
and have trouble reacting quickly to changes in traffic patterns.
Models that are based on closed-world data sets also become less
useful over time, as traffic changes. [JIANG] describes experiments
that showed that a model that performs with high accuracy on an
initial data set became severely degraded when running on a newer
data set that contained traffic from the same applications. Even in
as little time as one week, the traffic classification would become
degraded. However, the set of features in packets and flows that
were useful for models stayed mostly consistent, even if the models
themselves needed to be updated. Models where the feature space is
reduced to fewer features showed better resiliency, and could be
retrained more quickly. Based on this, [JIANG] recommends more work
and research on determining which set of features in IP packets are
most useful for focused machine learning analysis. [WU] also
recommends further research investment in Artificial Intelligent (AI)
analysis for network management.
2.1.2. Preventing traffic analysis
Just as traffic classification is continually adapting, techniques to
prevent traffic analysis and obfuscate application and user traffic
are continually evolving. An invited talk from the authors of
[DITTO] shared a novel approach with the workshop for how to build a
very robust system to prevent unwanted traffic analysis.
Usually traffic obfuscation is performed by changing the timing of
packets or adding padding data. The practices can be costly and
negatively impact performance. DITTO demonstrated the feasibility of
applying traffic obfuscation on aggregated traffic in the network
with minimal overhead and in line speed.
While traffic obfuscation techniques are today not widely deployed,
this study underlines, together with the need for continuous effort
to keep traffic models updated over time, the challenges of
classification of encrypted traffic as well as opportunities to
further enhance user privacy.
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
2.1.3. Users and privacy
The Privacy Enhancements and Assessments Research Group is working on
a document to discuss guidelines for how to measure traffic on the
Internet in a safe and privacy-friendly way
([I-D.irtf-pearg-safe-internet-measurement]). These guidelines and
principles provide another angle onto the discussion of passive
classification and analysis of traffic.
Consent for collection and measurement of metadata is an important
consideration in deploying network measurement techniques. This
consent can be explicitly given as informed consent, or can be given
by proxy or be only implied. For example, a user of a network might
need to consent to certain measurement and traffic treatment when
joining a network.
Various techniques for data collection can also improve user privacy,
such as discarding data after a short period of time, masking out
aspects of data that contain user-identifying information, reducing
the accuracy of collected data, and aggregating data.
2.1.4. Discussion
The intents and goals of users, application developers, and network
operators align in some cases, but not others. One of the recurring
challenges that came up was not having a clear way to understand or
communicate intents and requirements. Both traffic classification
and traffic obfuscation attempt to change the visibility of traffic
without cooperation of other parties: traffic classification is a
network attempting to inspect application traffic without
coordination from applications, and traffic obfuscation is an attempt
to hide that same traffic as it transits a network.
Traffic adaptation and prioritization is one dimension in which the
incentives for cooperation seem most clear. Even if an application
is trying to prevent leaking metadata, it could benefit from signals
from network about sudden capacity changes that can help it adapt its
application quality, such as bitrates and codecs. Such signalling
may not be appropriate for the most privacy-sensitive applications,
like Tor, but could be applicable for many others. There are
existing protocols that involve explicit signaling between
applications and networks, such as Explicit Congestion Notification
(ECN) [RFC3168], but that has yet to see wide adoption.
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
Managed networks (such a private corporate networks) was brought up
in several comments as a particularly challenging area for being able
to meet management requirements while maintaining encryption and
privacy. These networks can have legal and regulated requirements
for detection of specific fraudulent or malicious traffic.
Personal networks that enable managed parental controls have similar
complications with encrypted traffic and user privacy. In these
scenarios, the parental controls being operated by the network may be
as simple as a DNS filter, and can be made ineffective by a device
routing traffic to an alternate DNS resolver.
2.2. “Where we want to go” - Collaboration Principles
The second day of the workshop agenda focused on the emerging
techniques for analysing, managing or monitoring encrypted traffic.
Presentations ranged from discussing advanced classification and
identification, including machine-learning techniques, for the
purposes of manging network flows, monitoring or monetising usage.
After an introduction that covered the goals of the workshop and the
starting questions (as described in Section 1), there were three
presentations, followed by open discussion.
2.2.1. First party collaboration for network management
It is the intention of encryption to create a barrier between
entities inside the communication channel and everyone else,
including network operators, considering end-to-end encryption of
traffic. Any attempt, therefore, to overcome that intentional
barrier requires an intent to collaborate between the inside and
outside entities. Those entities must, at a minimum, agree on the
benefits to overcoming the barrier (or solving the problem), that
costs are proportional to the benefits, and to additional
limitations, or safeguards, against bad behaviour by collaborators
including the inclusion of other non-insiders [BARNES].
The Internet is designed interoperably, which means an outside entity
wishing to collaborate with the inside might be any number of
intermediaries and not, say, a specific person that can be trusted in
the human sense. Additionally the use of encryption, especially
network-layer or transport-layer encryption, introduces dynamic or
opportunitistic or perfunctory discoverability. These realities both
point to a need to interrogate the reason why any outside entity
might make an engineering case to collaborate with the user of a
network with encrypted traffic, and whether the tradeoffs and
potential risks are worth it to the user.
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
However, the answers cannot be specific and the determinations or
guidance need to be general as the encryption boundary is inevitably
an application used by many people. Tradeoffs must make sense to
users who are unlikely to be thinking about network management
considerations. Harms need to be preemptively reduced because in
general terms few users would choose network management benefits over
their own privacy if given the choice.
Some have found that there appears to be little if any actual
evidence that encryption is causing user-meaningful network problems.
Since alignment on problem-solving is a prerequisite to collaboration
on a solution it does not seem that collaboration across the
encryption boundary is called for.
2.2.2. Second and third party collaboration for network management
Even with the wide-scale deployment of encryption in new protocols
and techniques that prevent passive observers of network traffic from
knowing the content of exchanged communications, important
information such as which parties communicate and sometimes even
which services have been requested may still be able to be deduced.
The future is to conceal more data and metadata from passive
observers and also to minimize information exposure to second parties
(where the user is the first party) by, maybe counterintuitively,
introducing third-party relay services to intermediate
communications. As discussed in [KUEHLEWIND], the relay is a
mechanism to separate (using additional levels of encryption) two
important pieces of information: knowledge of the identity of the
person accessing a service is separated from knowledge about the
service being accessed. By contrast a VPN uses only one level of
encryption and does not separate identity (first party) and service
(second party) metadata.
Relay mechanisms are termed "oblivious", there is a future for
specifications in privacy-preserving measurement (PPM), and protocols
like Multiplexed Application Substrate over QUIC Encryption (MASQUE)
are discussed in the IETF. In various schemes, users are ideally
able to share their identity only with the entity they have
identified as a trusted one. That data is not shared with the
service provider. However this is more complicated for network
management, but there may be opportunities for better collaboration
between the network and, say, the application or service at the
endpoint.
A queriable relay mechanism could preserve network management
functions that are disrupted by encryption, such as TCP optimisation,
quality of service, zero-rating, parental controls, access control,
redirection, content enhancement, analytics and fraud prevention.
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
Instead of encrypted communication between only two ends and passive
observation by all on-path elements, intermediate relays could be
trusted parties with limited information for the purposes of
collaboration between in-network intermediary services' support.
2.2.3. Visible, optional network management
In encrypted communications, out of all of the possible network
management functions that might be ameliorated by proxying, the
ability to control congestion has been researched in depth. These
techniques are realized based on TCP performance enhancing proxies
(PEP) that either entirely intercept a TCP connection or interfere
with the transport information in the TCP header. However, despite
the challenge that the new encrypted protocol will limit any such in-
network interference, these techniques can also have a negative
impact on the evolvability of these protocols. Therefore, instead of
manipulating existing information, a new approach was presented where
additional information is send using a so-called side-car protocol
independent of the main transport protocol that is used end-to-end
[WELZL]. E.g. side car information can contain additional
acknowledgements to enable in-network local retransmission faster
end-to-end retransmission by reducing the signaling round trip time.
Taking user privacy benefits for granted, there is a need to
investigate the comparable performance outputs of various encrypted
traffic configurations such as use of an additional "side-car"
protocol, or explicit encrypted and trusted network communication
using MASQUE in relation to existing techniques such as TCP
performance enhancing proxies (PEP), etc.
2.2.4. Discussion
One size fits all? On the issue of trust, different networks or
devices are going to have different requirements for the level of
trust that they have in devices, users or each other, and vice versa.
For example, imagine networks with really different security
requirements, like protecting children in a home versus a national
security institution. How could one network architecture solve the
needs of all use cases?
Does our destination have consequences? It seems sometimes that
there may be consequences many years down the line of ubiquitous,
strong encryption of network traffic because it will cause a reaction
by intermediaries to find ways to poke holes in what are supposed to
be long-term solutions for user privacy and security.
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
Can we bring the user along? While there has been a focus on the
good reasons for why people might collaborate across the encryption
barrier, there will always be others who want to disrupt that because
they are motivated to exploit the data for their own gain, and
sometimes this is called innovation. What high-level policy
mitigations have done is to expose how powerless end users are to
corporate practices of data harvesting. And yet interfaces to help
users understand these lower layer traffic flows to protect their
financial transactions or privacy haven't been achieved yet. That
means that engineers are having to make inferences about what users
want. Instead we should be making these relationships and tradeoffs
more visible.
2.3. “How we get there” - Collaboration Use cases
The third day focused on techniques that could actually be used to
improve management of encrypted networks. A central theme of all of
the presentations about potential proposed paths forward included
some element of collaboration between networks and subscribing
clients that simultaneously want both privacy and protection. Thus,
the central theme in the third day became negotiation and
collaboration.
2.3.1. Establishing expected contracts to enable security management
When thinking about enterprise networks where client behavior is
potentially managed, [COLLINS] proposes "Improving network monitoring
through contracts", where contracts describe different states of
network behavior.
Because network operators have a limited amount of time to focus on
problems and process alerts, contracts and states let the operator
focus on a particular aspect of a current situation or problem. The
current estimate for the number of events a Security Operations
Center (SOC) operator can handle is about 10 per hour. Operators
must work within the limits imposed by their organization, and must
pick between options that frequently only frustrate attackers --
entirely preventing attacks is potentially impossible. Finally,
operators must prioritize and manage the most events possible.
Validating which alerts are true positives is challenging because
lots of weird traffic creates many anomalies and not all anomalies
are malicious events. Identifying what anomalous traffic is rooted
in malicious activity with any level of certainty is extremely
challenging. Unfortunately, applying the latest machine learning
techniques has only produced mixed results. To make matters worse,
the large amounts of Internet-wide scanning has resulted in endless
traffic that is technically malicious but only creates an information
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
overload and challenges event prioritization. Any path forward must
succeed in freeing up analyst time to concentrate on the more
challenging events.
The proposed contract solution is to define a collection of
acceptable behaviors categorized into an envelope of different states
that might include IP addresses, domain names, and indicators of
compromise. Deviation from a contract might indicate that a system
is acting outside a normal mode of behavior, or even a normal mode of
behavior is suddenly missing. An example contract might be "this
system is expected to update its base OS once a day", and if this
doesn't occur then this expectation has not been met and the system
should be checked as it failed to call home to look for (potentially
security related) updates.
Within the IETF, the Manufacturer Usage Description Specification
(MUD) {?RFC8520} specification is one subset of contracts. Note that
contracts are likely to only succeed in a constrained, expected
environment maintained by operational staff, and may not work in an
open internet environment where end users are driving all network
connections.
2.3.2. Zero Knowledge Middleboxes
The world is not only shifting to increased encrypted traffic but is
also encrypting more and more of the metadata (e.g. DNS queries and
responses). This makes network policy enforcement by middleboxes
significantly more challenging. The result is the creation of a
significant tension between security enforcement and privacy
protection.
A goal for solving this problem should include not weakening
encryption, should enable networks to enforce their policies, and
should ideally not require newly deployed server software. Existing
solutions fail with at least one of these points.
A cryptographic principle of a "zero-knowledge proof" (ZKP) [GRUBBS]
maybe one path forward to consider. A ZKP allows a third party to
verify that a statement is true, without revealing what the statement
actually is. Applying this to network traffic has been shown to
allow a middlebox to verify that traffic to a web server is actually
compliant with a policy without revealing the actual contents. This
solution meets the above three criteria. Using ZKP within TLS 1.3
traffic turns out to be plausible.
An example engine was built to test ZKP using encrypted DNS. Clients
were able to create DNS requests that were not listed within a DNS
block list. Middleboxes could verify, without knowing the exact
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
request, that the client's DNS request was not in the prohibited
list. Although the result was functional, the computational overhead
was still too slow and future work will be needed to decrease the ZKP
imposed latencies.
2.3.3. Red Rover - A collaborative approach to content filtering
The principle challenge being studied is how to deal with the inherit
conflict between filtering and privacy. Network operators need to
implement policies and regulations that can originate from many
locations (e.g. security, governmental, parental, etc). Conversely,
clients need to protect user's privacy and user security.
Safe browsing, originally created by Google, is one example of a
mechanism that tries to meet both sides of this conflict. It would
be beneficial to standardize this and other similar mechanisms.
Operating systems could continually protect their users by ensuring
that malicious destinations are not being reached. This would
require some coordination between cooperating clients and servers
offering protection services. These collaborative solutions may be
the best compromise between the tension of privacy vs protection
based services [PAULY].
3. Conclusions
Looking forward, the workshop participants identified that solving
the entire problem space with a single approach will be challenging
for several reasons:
* The scalability of many solutions will likely be an issue as some
solutions are complex or expensive to implement.
* Collaboration between multiple parties will be required for many
mechanisms to function, and the sets of parties required for
different use cases might be disjoint.
* There is an unanswered question of whether or not network
operators be willing to participate and allow technologies into
their environment requirements in exchange for technologies that
prove their clients are being good net-citizens. If so, some of
these solutions might be required to exist before networks allow a
certain type of increased encryption; consider the example of TLS
Encrypted Client Hello being blocked by some network operators.
The breadth of the problem space itself is another complicating
factor. There is a wide variety of network architectures, and each
has different requirements for both data encryption and network
management. Each problem space will have different encumbrances of
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
multiple types; for example, technical, legal, data ownership, and
regulatory concerns. New network architectures might be needed to
solve this problem at a larger scope, which would in turn require
interoperability support from network product vendors. Education
about various solutions will be required in order to ensure
regulation and policy organizations can understand and thus support
the deployment of developed solutions.
After new technologies and related standards are developed and
deployed, unintended consequences can emerge that weren't considered
during the design of the protocol. These lead to effects in multiple
directions: on one hand, exposed protocol values not intended for
network management might be used by networks to differentiate
traffic; on the other hand, changes to a protocol might have impact
on private network deployments that break existing use cases. While
making decisions on technology direction and protocol design, it is
important to consider the impact on various kinds of network
deployments and their unique requirements. When protocols change to
make different network management functions easier or harder, the
impact on various deployment models ought to be considered and
documented.
4. Informative References
[BARNES] Barnes, R., "What’s In It For Me? Revisiting the reasons
people collaborate", August 2022,
<https://github.com/intarchboard/m-ten-
workshop/blob/main/papers/Barnes-Whats-In-It-For-Me-
Revisiting-the-reasons-people-collaborate.pdf>.
[CASAS] Casas, P., "Monitoring User-Perceived Quality in an
Encrypted Internet", August 2022,
<https://github.com/intarchboard/workshop-m-
ten/blob/main/papers/Casas-AI-driven-real-time-QoE-
monitoring-encrypted-traffic.pdf>.
[COLLINS] Collins, M., "Improving Network Monitoring Through
Contracts", August 2022, <https://github.com/intarchboard/
workshop-m-ten/blob/main/papers/Collins-Improving-Network-
Monitoring-Through-Contracts.pdf>.
[DERI] Deri, L., "nDPI Research Proposal", August 2022,
<https://github.com/intarchboard/workshop-m-
ten/blob/main/papers/Deri-nDPI-Research-Proposal.pdf>.
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
[DITTO] Meier, R., Lenders, V., and L. Vanbever, "Ditto - WAN
Traffic Obfuscation at Line Rate", April 2022,
<https://nsg.ee.ethz.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/
publications/ditto_final_ndss22.pdf>.
[ELKINS] Elkins, N., Ackermann, M., Tahiliani, M., Dhody, D., and
T. Pecorella, "Performance Monitoring in Encrypted
Networks", August 2022, <https://github.com/intarchboard/
workshop-m-ten/blob/main/papers/Elkins-Performance-
Monitoring-in-Encrypted-Networks-PDMv2.pdf>.
[GRUBBS] Grubbs, P., Arun, A., Zhang, Y., Bonneau, J., and M.
Walfish, "Zero-Knowledge Middleboxes", August 2022,
<https://github.com/intarchboard/workshop-m-
ten/blob/main/papers/Grubbs-Zero-
Knowledge%20Middleboxes.pdf>.
[I-D.irtf-pearg-safe-internet-measurement]
Learmonth, I. R., Grover, G., and M. Knodel, "Guidelines
for Performing Safe Measurement on the Internet", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-pearg-safe-internet-
measurement-08, 10 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-pearg-
safe-internet-measurement-08>.
[JIANG] Jiang, X., Liu, S., Naama, S., Bronzino, F., Schmitt, P.,
and N. Feamster, "Towards Designing Robust and Efficient
Classifiers for Encrypted Traffic in the Modern Internet",
August 2022, <https://github.com/intarchboard/workshop-m-
ten/blob/main/papers/Jiang-Towards-Designing-Robust-and-
Efficient-Classifiers-for-Encrypted-Traffic-in-the-Modern-
Internet.pdf>.
[KNODEL] Knodel, M., "Guidelines for Performing Safe Measurement on
the Internet", August 2022,
<https://github.com/intarchboard/workshop-m-
ten/blob/main/papers/Knodel-Guidelines-for-Performing-
Safe-Measurement-on-the-Internet.pdf>.
[KUEHLEWIND]
Kühlewind, M., Westerlund, M., Sarker, Z., and M. Ihlar,
"Relying on Relays", August 2022,
<https://github.com/intarchboard/workshop-m-
ten/blob/main/papers/Kuehlewind-Relying-on-Relays.pdf>.
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
[LEI] Lei, Y., Wu, J., Sun, X., Zhang, L., and Q. Wu, "Encrypted
Traffic Classification Through Deep Learning", August
2022, <https://github.com/intarchboard/workshop-m-
ten/blob/main/papers/Lei-Encrypted-Traffic-Classification-
Through-Deep-Learning.pdf>.
[PAULY] Pauly, T. and R. Barnes, "Red Rover", August 2022,
<https://github.com/intarchboard/workshop-m-
ten/blob/main/papers/Pauly-Red-Rover-A-collaborative-
approach-to-content-filtering.pdf>.
[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/rfc/rfc3168>.
[WELZL] Welzl, M., "The Sidecar", August 2022,
<https://github.com/intarchboard/workshop-m-
ten/blob/main/papers/Welzl-The-Sidecar-Opting-in-to-PEP-
Functions.pdf>.
[WU] Wu, Q., Wu, J., and Q. Ma, "Network Management of
Encrypted Traffic", August 2022,
<https://github.com/intarchboard/workshop-m-
ten/blob/main/papers/Wu-mten-taxonomy.pdf>.
Appendix A. Position Papers
Interested participants were openly invited to submit position papers
on the workshop topics, including Internet-Drafts, relevant academic
papers, or short abstracts explaining their interest. The papers
below constitute the inputs that were considered relevant for
workshop attendees and that focused the discussions themselves. The
program committee grouped the papers by theme as such.
A.1. Motivations and principles
Richard Barnes. “What’s In It For Me? Revisiting the reasons people
collaborate.” [BARNES]
Iain R. Learmonth, Gurshabad Grover, Mallory Knodel. “Guidelines for
Performing Safe Measurement on the Internet.” (Additional rationale)
[KNODEL]
Qin Wu, Jun Wu, Qiufang Ma. “Network Management of Encrypted Traffic:
Detect it don’t decrypt it.” [WU]
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
A.2. Classification and identification of encrypted traffic
Luca Deri. “nDPI Research Proposal.” [DERI]
Wes Hardaker. “Network Flow Management by Probability.”
Xi Jiang, Shinan Liu, Saloua Naama, Francesco Bronzino, Paul Schmitt,
Nick Feamster. “Towards Designing Robust and Efficient Classifiers
for Encrypted Traffic in the Modern Internet.” [JIANG]
Yupeng Lei, Jun Wu, Xudong Sun, Liang Zhang, Qin Wu. “Encrypted
Traffic Classification Through Deep Learning.” [LEI]
A.3. Ideas for collaboration and coordination between devices and
networks
Michael Collins. “Improving Network Monitoring Through Contracts.”
[COLLINS]
Paul Grubbs, Arasu Arun, Ye Zhang, Joseph Bonneau, Michael Walfish.
“Zero-Knowledge Middleboxes.” [GRUBBS]
Mirja Kühlewind, Magnus Westerlund, Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Marcus
Ihlar. “Relying on Relays: The future of secure communication.”
[KUEHLEWIND]
Tommy Pauly, Richard Barnes. “Red Rover: A collaborative approach to
content filtering.” [PAULY]
Michael Welzl. “The Sidecar: ‘Opting in’ to PEP Functions.“ [WELZL]
A.4. Other background material
Pedro Casas. “Monitoring User-Perceived Quality in an Encrypted
Internet – AI to the Rescue.” [CASAS]
Nalini Elkins, Mike Ackermann, Mohit P. Tahiliani, Dhruv Dhody,
Prof. Tommaso Pecorella. “Performance Monitoring in Encrypted
Networks: PDMv2.” [ELKINS]
Appendix B. Workshop participants
The workshop participants were Cindy Morgan, Colin Perkins, Cullen
Jennings, Deborah Brungard, Dhruv Dhody, Eric Vyncke, Georg Carle,
Ivan Nardi, Jari Arkko, Jason Livingood, Jiankang Yao, Karen
O'Donoghue, Keith Winstein, Lars Eggert, Laurent Vanbever, Luca Deri,
Mallory Knodel, Marcus Ihlar, Matteo, Michael Ackermann, Michael
Collins, Michael Richardson, Michael Welzl, Mike Ackermann, Mirja
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft M-TEN workshop report August 2023
Kühlewind, Mohit P. Tahiliani, Nalini Elkins, Patrick Tarpey, Paul
Grubbs, Pedro Casas, Qin Wu, Qiufang, Richard Barnes, Rob Wilton,
Russ White, Saloua Naama, Shinan Liu, Srinivas C, Toerless Eckert,
Tommy Pauly, Wes Hardaker, Xi Chase Jiang, Zaheduzzaman Sarker, and
Zhenbin Li.
Appendix C. Program Committee
The workshop program committee members were Wes Hardaker (IAB, USC/
ISI), Mallory Knodel (IAB, Center for Democracy and Technology),
Mirja Kühlewind (IAB, Ericsson), Tommy Pauly (IAB, Apple), Russ White
(IAB, Juniper), Qin Wu (IAB, Huawei).
Acknowledgments
TODO acknowledge.
Authors' Addresses
Mallory Knodel
Center for Democracy & Technology
Email: mknodel@cdt.org
Wes Hardaker
Email: ietf@hardakers.net
Tommy Pauly
Email: tpauly@apple.com
Knodel, et al. Expires 15 February 2024 [Page 17]
