Re: [anonsec] Connection latching by default?

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> Mon, 14 January 2008 22:57 UTC

Return-path: <anonsec-bounces@postel.org>
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEYF8-0002Vi-Mu for btns-archive-waDah9Oh@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:57:22 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEYF8-0007cj-B5 for btns-archive-waDah9Oh@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:57:22 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m0EMkjuk006217; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:46:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com (brmea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m0EMkS7d006140 for <anonsec@postel.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:46:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dm-central-01.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.4]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m0EMkSUT029577 for <anonsec@postel.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:46:28 GMT
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-01.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id m0EMkRdq018999 for <anonsec@postel.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:46:28 -0700 (MST)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m0EMkR4T004620; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:46:27 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1/Submit) id m0EMkQXO004619; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:46:26 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:46:26 -0600
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <20080114224626.GF4374@Sun.COM>
Mail-Followup-To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, Black_David@emc.com, anonsec@postel.org
References: <20080110234505.GG810@Sun.COM> <tslbq7ojbjn.fsf@mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <tslbq7ojbjn.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: nicolas.williams@sun.com
Cc: anonsec@postel.org, Black_David@emc.com
Subject: Re: [anonsec] Connection latching by default?
X-BeenThere: anonsec@postel.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions of anonymous Internet security." <anonsec.postel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/anonsec>, <mailto:anonsec-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/anonsec>
List-Post: <mailto:anonsec@postel.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anonsec-request@postel.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/anonsec>, <mailto:anonsec-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: anonsec-bounces@postel.org
Errors-To: anonsec-bounces@postel.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c

On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 05:18:52PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think you need to have strong support for making it a should;

I'm asking who does support it (I know Dan does strongly support this,
and there is one implementation that does this _today_, namely Solaris).

> silence is not enough on this point.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "silence is not enough
on this point" -- did I say something that indicated that silence would
be taken to denote consent?

Nico
-- 
_______________________________________________