Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

what's going on with this draft? Is this still waiting for Sandy, or  
is the ball with the authors?

Lars

On 2009-7-9, at 10:06, Eggert Lars (Nokia-NRC/Espoo) wrote:

> Hi, Sandy,
>
> On 2009-6-8, at 16:59, Sandra Murphy wrote:
>> I've been on the road, so this is just a quick note to say that I  
>> still
>> have questions, with a promise of more full answer when I get back  
>> to the
>> office tomorrow.
>
> the authors are still waiting to hear your additional questions.  
> Please let me know when we can expect them, so I know when I can  
> expect a revision from the authors.
>
> Thanks,
> Lars
>
>> All the following done really from memory from a
>> re-review yesterday.  Just  so you know I haven't forgotten you.
>>
>> About quoting text:
>>
>> The example you point to of what each mitigation says is a good case.
>> (what is "rg"?)
>>
>> You posit a case 1 and case 2.  This is a summary of what 793 says,  
>> not a
>> quote.  793 spreads the discussion over 2 pages.  your case 1 is
>> represented in a parenthetical remark in an "otherwise" clause -  
>> hard to
>> find.  And you have a typo in the inequality.  And the case 2 in  
>> 793 is
>> broken out over three different groupings of states.  Do you mean  
>> the new
>> ACK to be generated in all three state groups?
>>
>> About the stingency.
>>
>> If UNA is 1000, Max.snd.wnd is 50, and the ack is 975, then in 793,  
>> the
>> ack is < UNA and so "it is ignored", in your draft the ack is >
>> UNA-max.snd.wnd so it is acceptable.
>>
>> So your draft accepts more ACKs that 793.
>>
>> Have I lost my ability to tell > from <?  Do you regard accepting  
>> more
>> ACKS as "more stringent"?
>>
>> About the guidance to implementors.
>>
>> It still looks to me like this guidance is only useful to  
>> implementors who
>> are implementing both the OS TCP stack *AND* the application.  I.E.,
>> freebsd won't know whether this to follow the guidance or not but
>> cisco/juniper/etc will.
>>
>> What is the "AS"?
>>
>> About grammar checks:
>>
>> And you did not miss email, I lost my marked up copy, so I've  gone
>> through for the grammar check again (don't think I found all that  
>> many
>> nits) and will send to you.
>>
>> --Sandy
>>
>>
>