IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [saag] Will there be an RFC4949bis?

Metapolymath Majordomo <majordomo@metapolymath.com> Tue, 29 December 2020 23:29 UTC

Return-Path: <kw@metapolymath.com>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B9623A0C57 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 15:29:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=metapolymath.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3dhRQLWahZaR for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 15:29:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 339863A0C53 for <saag@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 15:29:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id y19so34017374lfa.13 for <saag@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 15:29:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=metapolymath.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MGXSz+484P4wCN9iCqOkpcEqrFBWm2DDZc1H1O7CmR4=; b=WwiWdTedznmxJGKMYHmE/7KIXl0/KOYZweq0DOLAvsq6Pw4OjlSPlKK7pxWdMMUbky bxV6VXEbGRtDiERVUmYCkhlkuIZ+KtcrsHpG/sbNnG+Tl0zcAYAs6LYctFy7rc8NhI4i 5En0NNqY5LSBCbS39ae/DmncmSshy7y4rhZYJJQ7NuXbaoeGYjyqBqZXuL3gqIZfu8iB 4QFhx3tAOTG2tEZmTYj0JwX9RpwwcNXQiYnMjb1U2bbR0LoYwa8cgTrwMGlyQQXYGm1Z 3tAQF8zjuTh79VkEvEveeu47zG0KoX9nvs1QgbuXxkjoLsxi+RZFfX+JGs7yMacGnp+L eEmQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MGXSz+484P4wCN9iCqOkpcEqrFBWm2DDZc1H1O7CmR4=; b=FumKNBgV9UVYn/vJQhi0RNCQbAVD8ydr+4x4rZSj70mQDfj1gDT0Qraos2ig258EIp MIWX4/KTo9rwiArUEl+9loSoRovA7gE1Wuuwlq13xcjL9znOAqZflWX6AGO13BOUtobe JZIIcKVTiF9LLr9Y7RlNLGLQ4dgXMPXZ/7JjPBE8Jw/gVe1MA7GQ3eO5QSqBehia1t9R uJ4AbeVSQCP89xcAKgTPyWv+EAhB/eo1PpMW1MgGCRY/gWHN5poXOsRph67wt+VWHBqM 6mak7eYLTm0a1cdGrxpEsEPV9cYIQ0vnrwT3mudMcrZzo7BAiCQwKJ/0OChOHRORH5UB 0ArQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530sR6/UhxwWsthF6qyXiSWKHPrny3LkQDOYxa5XYEc/ePLGPMV6 USiyMltcS8A4QA0wzKhYNve74LOnrJxOnkR00vu3tQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzK71AHHLSYJcxsgsNkEiNtx3DKZ7VsiRLLmQU7f0B4oCmqfXAUvGAZLbzqRmHHzo5wI7aBDF6v7Yw73hZm/6A=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:503:: with SMTP id o3mr24158649ljp.253.1609284573544; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 15:29:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAN40gSub=7hbvg6rJueRzkoHy6ejQ+An9ioeWbUmzB0FmfZUKA@mail.gmail.com> <29141.1609269580@localhost> <CABtv6o-qQg9ogcffNMwqxSST6dxFBJFYEskULr+25AJQFgO-tw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABtv6o-qQg9ogcffNMwqxSST6dxFBJFYEskULr+25AJQFgO-tw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Metapolymath Majordomo <majordomo@metapolymath.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 17:29:23 -0600
Message-ID: <CABtv6o-i3xE6+zrLoiaxx4HobDiSKc9SMosEn1nL1iKv81RTTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>, saag@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000059595405b7a2c38a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/Hcb35pnjZ3H7Km2QXL6fzJs5v-s>
Subject: Re: [saag] Will there be an RFC4949bis?
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/saag/>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 23:29:38 -0000

I apologize I didn't realize my signature was off.

I agree with Michael's conclusions.

With Regard,

Kronah Wood
Metapolymath, LLC
PO Box 19236
Lenexa, KS 66219-9236
+1.2139158297
www.metapolymath.com

Sent from Mobile





On Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 2:00 PM Metapolymath Majordomo <
majordomo@metapolymath.com> wrote:

> Concur on amendments option.
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:20 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>     > The Internet Glossary is a very useful resource to many authors and
>> many
>>     > SDOs.  But it was published in August 2007, several eras of
>> technology in
>>     > the past.  Since the definitions are often out-of-date in their
>> references
>>     > to
>>     > source SDO definitions, they are sometimes inaccurate for current
>> usage.
>>
>> hi, I'm told that 4949 took a lot of compromise to arrive at.
>> (I personally can't recall the debate at all, but I had a new baby around
>> that time)
>>
>> I think that doing 4949bis is probably the wrong approach.
>> Instead, I would suggest a round of Updates (Amends) 4949, and then later
>> on,
>> collect it back.
>>
>> We had a discussion a few weeks ago about on-path attackers vs packet
>> dropping.
>> I wrote draft-richardson-saag-onpath-attacker-00 to capture that
>> discussion,
>> and bring it forward, and yes, Amend rfc4949. (co-authors sought)
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting
>> )
>>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>> _______________________________________________
>> saag mailing list
>> saag@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email