Re: [tcpm] New I-D

At 08:53 p.m. 20/02/2007, Mark Allman wrote:

>Let me put it this way ... This seems to me to be a TCP
>**implementation** issue.  Why should we need to standardize this issue
>and not other internal resource contention issues?  Why is this anything
>but a very local problem that can be handled by the TCP implementation
>in whatever way that implementation chooses?

I think there are some instances of this already... e.g., Clark's RFC 
on fragment reassembly. IMHO, an Inforamtional doc on some 
implementation issues that may be troublesome might be of help.

>And, then why is the proposed solution the right one?

So far it does not look like "the right one" to me. I raised at least 
a few ways in which the attacker can fool the proposed countermeasure.

-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm