IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure (Improving TCP's Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks) to Proposed Standard

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Sat, 23 May 2009 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ananth@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6188D3A690D for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2009 17:36:22 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 qG7YF-nNDPiB for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2009 17:36:15 -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 931163A6A1F for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2009 17:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,235,1241395200"; d="scan'208";a="168605101"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 May 2009 00:37:46 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n4N0bjs7022287; Fri, 22 May 2009 17:37:45 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4N0bjW3015172; Sat, 23 May 2009 00:37:45 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 22 May 2009 17:37:45 -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, 22 May 2009 17:37:44 -0700
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58074EEDE0@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A172044.2050103@gont.com.ar>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure (Improving TCP's Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AcnbKJ4Ou4PZp3laRZeKl7Vw6ruvNAAEne0w
References: <20090402150706.EC83D28C222@core3.amsl.com> <29AE22C3-F03F-48A8-B335-A7C8E0265406@nokia.com> <53AC2432-4B39-46FD-8414-F29EC648066C@nokia.com> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58074EEA6E@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <4A172044.2050103@gont.com.ar>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 May 2009 00:37:45.0782 (UTC) FILETIME=[B0D2A560:01C9DB3E]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2468; t=1243039065; x=1243903065; 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=20[tcpm]=20Last=20Call=3A=20draft-ietf-tc pm-tcpsecure=20(Improving=20TCP's=20Robustness=20to=20Blind= 20In-Window=20Attacks)=20to=20Proposed=20Standard |Sender:=20; bh=tgJ2V3czkbzlVWzZ+0rlkOcN53fH01b6T/iADbMbYkY=; b=Pz8xH1MtmP5UP9YG2Gh7pSLtK7qO5Qb1+tbNeKPivYVXsNkfEgCOi8cA5s 5/ymtlvX2pYX/nPmN0ANSMdU432gmBa52m/OH2Lz8T7XZ6wAImzfdairWnis keuW4B/LLM;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure (Improving TCP's Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 00:36:22 -0000

Fernando,
    I will summarize all the comments which have been incorporated when
I post the next revision. I have no issues trying out the <?rfc
iprnotified="yes"?> suggestion by Brian. My email to Lars was primarily
to say that "there have been discussions about the comments and the next
revision is work in progress"
    Does that clarify?
-Anantha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fernando Gont 
> [mailto:fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
> Fernando Gont
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 3:00 PM
> To: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
> Cc: Lars Eggert; tcpm@ietf.org; 
> draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure 
> (Improving TCP's Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks) to 
> Proposed Standard
> 
> Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> 
> >    There were some comments by Sandra Murphy which we have had 
> > discussion. I had already responded to Fernando's comments and the 
> > agreed upon comments are being incorporated.
> 
> IIRC, there had been comments from Brian Carpenter about 
> specific requirements for text in RFC 3979. Here's a quote 
> from Brian's post:
> 
> 
> > Personal belief doesn't come into it. It's strictly defined 
> in a BCP.
> > RFC3979 tells us the rules about this. Basically, the RFC 
> Editor will 
> > do what is required:
> >
> > "4.  Actions for Documents for which IPR Disclosure(s) Have Been
> >      Received
> >
> >    (A) When any Intellectual Property Right is disclosed before
> >        publication as an  RFC, with respect to any technology or
> >        specification, described in a Contribution in the manner set
> >        forth in Section 6 of this document, the RFC Editor shall
> >        ensure
> >        that the document include a note indicating the existence of
> >        such
> >        claimed Intellectual Property Rights in any RFC 
> published from
> >        the Contribution.  (See Section 5 below.)"
> >
> > [Section 5 defines the exact text to be included in such RFCs.
> > I believe you can use <?rfc iprnotified="yes"?> in xml2rfc.]
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what's the chairs' and ADs' take on this issue.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Kind regards,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org PGP 
> Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email