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

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Fri, 14 August 2009 15:22 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 C71CA3A6C26; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 LvwG3c+075Qz; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D62213A6B5F; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAPgdhUqrR7O6/2dsb2JhbAC6AogtkRMFhBk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,381,1246838400"; d="scan'208";a="195658229"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Aug 2009 15:22:20 +0000
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n7EFMK4d000555; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:22:20 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7EFMKw7024011; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:22:20 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); Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:22:20 -0700
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: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:22:18 -0700
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5807CEEA50@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E63E6749-FD14-4F50-8351-0F1A48B50EB7@nokia.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure
Thread-Index: Acoc0kZJyTVtKQkIQ12/r0XoKoRFkQAICNWQ
References: <Pine.WNT.4.64.0906080948290.6048@SANDYM-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <03C04ACE-5773-4260-AABD-E799E614C469@nokia.com> <E63E6749-FD14-4F50-8351-0F1A48B50EB7@nokia.com>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: "Lars Eggert" <lars.eggert@nokia.com>, "Sandra Murphy" <sandy@sparta.com>, "Mitesh Dalal (mdalal)" <mdalal@cisco.com>, "IESG IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, <secdir@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Aug 2009 15:22:20.0194 (UTC) FILETIME=[03EC7820:01CA1CF3]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3098; t=1250263340; x=1251127340; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ananth@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Anantha=20Ramaiah=20(ananth)=22=20<ananth@cisco .com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure |Sender:=20; bh=KBOnk2wx1iSJURsOIYV5ybodBvHUi3naSfMU1Af+hPk=; b=MgMAZ6pXzdT5Y2tVVJUL3Z8rG+MyGJomfBFoNiCsb9O0hsGF07oNCPNQET RpECCyEA/p5sMC594zYii780LbZByOJQTqBvPOKN3j7XsWUKVmD0YcIgoHVH CdAWMIIaWi;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
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 15:22:16 -0000

Hi Lars,
    I am still waitng for Sandy, but I am thinking I should go ahead and
probably submit what we have now (which I can do in a few days, since it
has been a while I looked at what I have and need to double check
whether everything is incorporated)
-Anantha 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert@nokia.com] 
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 4:27 AM
> To: Sandra Murphy; Mitesh Dalal (mdalal); Anantha Ramaiah 
> (ananth); IESG IESG; secdir@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure
> 
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>