Re: [tcpm] New I-D

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Wed, 21 February 2007 00:57 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HJfnQ-0006bu-4d; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:57:24 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HJfnP-0006bo-PG for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:57:23 -0500
Received: from smtp1.xmundo.net ([201.216.232.80]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HJfnG-0004WW-4Y for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:57:23 -0500
Received: from venus.xmundo.net (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]) by smtp1.xmundo.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AEEDF0C485; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:42:43 -0300 (ART)
Received: from fgont.gont.com.ar (72-179-231-201.fibertel.com.ar [201.231.179.72]) (authenticated bits=0) by venus.xmundo.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l1L0fSMG029531; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:42:13 -0300
Message-Id: <200702210042.l1L0fSMG029531@venus.xmundo.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:41:08 -0300
To: mallman@icir.org, MURALI BASHYAM <murali_bashyam@yahoo.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] New I-D
In-Reply-To: <20070220235328.057B41822A6@lawyers.icir.org>
References: <902737.15421.qm@web31702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20070220235328.057B41822A6@lawyers.icir.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]); Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:42:42 -0300 (ART)
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, weddy@grc.nasa.gov
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

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