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

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Fri, 14 August 2009 12:16 UTC

Return-Path: <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
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 591F43A68C5; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.965
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.965 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 6Np7sP23+rfd; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (mail.fit.nokia.com [195.148.124.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2B13A69F6; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.180.41.33] ([192.100.124.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.fit.nokia.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7EBQijV067790 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:26:45 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from lars.eggert@nokia.com)
Message-Id: <E63E6749-FD14-4F50-8351-0F1A48B50EB7@nokia.com>
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
To: Sandra Murphy <sandy@sparta.com>, "mdalal@cisco.com (mdalal)" <mdalal@cisco.com>, "ananth@cisco.com (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>, IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <03C04ACE-5773-4260-AABD-E799E614C469@nokia.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-52--788428443; micalg=sha1; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:26:34 +0300
References: <Pine.WNT.4.64.0906080948290.6048@SANDYM-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <03C04ACE-5773-4260-AABD-E799E614C469@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.2 (mail.fit.nokia.com [212.213.221.39]); Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:26:46 +0300 (EEST)
Subject: Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure
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: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:16:50 -0000

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
>>
>>
>