IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] [tcpm] SECDIR REVIEW of draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-10.txt

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 24 February 2010 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF95D28C245; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:00:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HZPzTypD3Acg; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:00:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0908528C14B; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:00:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [75.214.31.137] (137.sub-75-214-31.myvzw.com [75.214.31.137]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1OHxgPs014029 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:59:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B85690D.4050707@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:59:41 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
References: <a123a5d61002121827y2f2b0256u5859790c06819a92@mail.gmail.com> <4B79A54C.7040107@gont.com.ar> <4B79A9BA.5050205@isi.edu> <4B79AEC8.3030506@gont.com.ar> <4B79B270.5060804@isi.edu> <4B79B7D9.8080909@gont.com.ar> <4B7ACB68.9020503@isi.edu> <a123a5d61002240952u792a1154v2e7b7e945c886aae@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a123a5d61002240952u792a1154v2e7b7e945c886aae@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigB939625BC76FE1BD4643B39E"
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] [tcpm] SECDIR REVIEW of draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-10.txt
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:00:08 -0000


Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> When a document becomes an RFC it is read as a stand alone document
> and not in the context of the working group discussions that may have
> ended years ago.
> 
> If a particular security issue has not been discussed because it was
> out of scope, that should be given as the reason that it is not
> discussed.

That seems worthwhile to include IMO, esp. as a response to SECDIR review.

Joe

> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Fernando Gont wrote:
>> ...
>>> Anyway: For the most part I'm wondering if there's any additional text
>>> needed to address Phillip's comments. Thoughts? This should be our focus
>>> at this point in time.
>> There were two separate points raised, IMO:
>>
>> - clarification of the role of this doc's recommendations
>>        The WG was aware of this issue, and there was
>>        a lot of effort in creating the existing text that
>>        already considered this perspective. No change needed.
>>
>> - addressing the larger issue of the role/need of ICMPs
>>        This is out of scope for this doc. No change needed.
>>
>> Overall, I think there isn't a need for a change.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email