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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>> Behalf Of Joe Touch
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 8:44 AM
>> To: Fernando Gont
>> Cc: [e-mail]; Phillip Hallam-Baker; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [tcpm] SECDIR REVIEW of 
>> draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-10.txt
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
> 
> I would still think there is some text needed which explains (in a
> sentence or two) the role of this documents recommendations. Atleast
> explain why the target was chosen to be "informational" at this point of
> time. Would help a lot of readers/implementers down the line since this
> question would keep coming. But that's just me, if the consensus is to
> not add anything I am fine too.

The role is basically limited to 'documenting what is deployed', which
is summarized fairly directly in the abstract.

The specific recommendation made towards the end of the intro reiterates
that.

I.e., this is not a new issue, and it's something for which there is
specific text already.

I think it answers the mail on that point.

Joe