draft-ietf-pilc-error-07.txt - some fixes requested by IESG
Allison Mankin <mankin@ISI.EDU> Fri, 18 May 2001 17:54 UTC
Posted-Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 13:54:51 -0400
Message-Id: <10105181754.AA15466@maia.east.isi.edu>
To: gabriel montenegro <gab@sun.com>, Markku Kojo <kojo@cs.Helsinki.FI>, aaron@PanAmSat.com, spencer.dawkins@fnc.fujitsu.com
Cc: sob@harvard.edu, pilc@grc.nasa.gov
Reply-To: mankin@ISI.EDU
Subject: draft-ietf-pilc-error-07.txt - some fixes requested by IESG
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 13:54:51 -0400
From: Allison Mankin <mankin@ISI.EDU>
Sender: owner-pilc@grc.nasa.gov
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2077
Lines: 47
ERROR authors and PILC chairs, The IESG completed a discussion of ERROR yesterday and overall would like it to advance, but we need two issues resolved. With the working group involved in resolving the issues, there is very little chance that further last-calling will be needed. Allison Issues with draft-ietf-pilc-error-07.txt 1. ----------- As the To: list heard last week, there was an oversight about updating the discussion of RFC 3042 (which, by the way, has been implemented and exercised significantly in Linux recently). The easiest course is to leave the recommendation about it in Future Work (Section 4.0) with a text update. The IESG accepted this approach, i.e. replacing Section 4.0 first paragraph with: "Limited Transmit" [RFC3042] has been specified as an optimization extending Fast Retransmit/Fast Recovery for TCP connections with small congestion windows that won't generate three duplicate acknowledgements. This specification is deemed safe, and it also provides benefits for TCP connections with larger congestion windows when losses occur at or near the right edge of the window. Implementors should evaluate this standards track specification for TCP in loss environments. 2. ----------- The Security Considerations section is very terse. It is a good comment as far as it goes, but it should say explicitly that the fact recommended methods coexist with end-to-end IPSec use is in contrast to PEP-based methods, which do not. In addition, are there additional insights about the security considerations of the specs that ERROR recommends that either time or the special conditions of highly errored links should cause you to add? Please consider and enhance this section. A new resource to help with enhancing your Security Considerations is draft-rescorla-sec-cons-03.txt. The IAB has worked with the authors and hopes to issue this as an IAB-endorsed recommendation in the near future. IESG would like to see folks use it and also we welcome you to review and comment on it to IAB and ourselves. Allison
- draft-ietf-pilc-error-07.txt - some fixes request… Allison Mankin
- Re: draft-ietf-pilc-error-07.txt - some fixes req… Mark Allman
- Re: draft-ietf-pilc-error-07.txt - some fixes req… Allison Mankin
- Re: draft-ietf-pilc-error-07.txt - some fixes req… Mark Allman
- Re: draft-ietf-pilc-error-07.txt - some fixes req… Allison Mankin
- Re: draft-ietf-pilc-error-07.txt - some fixes req… Mark Allman