Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04.txt

Mahesh Jethanandani <> Mon, 06 June 2011 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB7911E818E; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y1SxCe9j2shw; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A5E711E8186; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2570; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1307379103; x=1308588703; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=+Qtm4VXOLHHryWq5M80uW5SYjJOA9yawlZtwNpnXV3g=; b=fxxSoa/d6Lp+mmQ+bODi804PNBkdxYceJWwEUR0Lr6kMoCNLj9L52VHr Amo732b1D8N1eeCsnsrpjfcKes+bK6eRzIJDEfesOrANSA8zKVUIaZC/5 ILNSW5TQW6VyrUZbsi3iJpT2r1+xyInNTsBJHtGXPDS7c8/ddO6hSSdCj o=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.65,327,1304294400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="708925894"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2011 16:51:43 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p56GpgVT028090; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:51:43 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:51:42 -0700
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <>
Organization: Cisco Systems Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Derek Atkins <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040703030503010900070709"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 10:21:21 -0700
Cc:,, "Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <>,,
Subject: Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:51:44 -0000


After lot of discussion regarding the scope of this document, the WG 
felt that the draft should be limited to clarifying the language in RFC 
1122. If you were to look at earlier versions of the draft, we had a 
section in the draft that talked about possible mitigation techniques 
and socket level API changes that would be needed to be able to 
determine which connections were stuck in persist condition.

Once the scope was defined as clarifying senders behavior in persist 
condition, the WG felt that it was not necessary to have a section that 
talked about possible solution. The section was therefore removed.

On 6/6/2011 8:26 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> The document also mentions orphaned connections but does not mention
> how to mitigate an attack against systems that have orphaned
> connections.

-- mj