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

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Tue, 16 February 2010 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ananth@cisco.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 64EE028C1B1; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:45:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 9RVHfUfx0MAT; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:45:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CFB28C0E9; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:45:29 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAFppekurRN+J/2dsb2JhbACbGXSmCZdmhFsEgxSLEA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,485,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="299792539"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2010 17:47:04 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o1GHl4hM002366; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:47:04 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:47:04 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:47:02 -0800
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5808EB5C32@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B7ACB68.9020503@isi.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] SECDIR REVIEW of draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-10.txt
Thread-Index: AcqvJ5gXsgopgP/BTROs15hmZLMgUwAAwdzQ
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>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2010 17:47:04.0670 (UTC) FILETIME=[0D1BD7E0:01CAAF30]
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, 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: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:45:30 -0000

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Joe Touch
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 8:44 AM
> To: Fernando Gont
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org; Phillip Hallam-Baker; secdir@ietf.org
> 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.

-Anantha