Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?

Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Tue, 25 September 2007 06:07 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ia3Zs-0006NW-Lt; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:07:24 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ia3Zr-0006NO-6k for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:07:23 -0400
Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ia3Zq-0003mm-0S for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:07:23 -0400
Received: from netcore.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l8P676qS002269; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:07:07 +0300
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id l8P675q2002265; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:07:06 +0300
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:07:05 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
In-Reply-To: <200709250229.l8P2TLfI029744@venus.xmundo.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709250900420.1575@netcore.fi>
References: <20070924174444.F2C662A7182@lawyers.icir.org> <200709250229.l8P2TLfI029744@venus.xmundo.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.2/4386/Tue Sep 25 03:44:53 2007 on otso.netcore.fi
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, AWL, BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on otso.netcore.fi
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, mallman@icir.org
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

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Fernando Gont wrote:
> At 02:44 p.m. 24/09/2007, Mark Allman wrote:
>> In the meeting in Chicago we took a "visual hum" and the tally looks
>> like this:
>>
>>        all SHOULDs: 4
>>        all MAYs: 3
>>        two SHOULDs and a MAY: 8
>> 
>> So, our inclination is to go with option (3) from my list above.  If you
>> think this is the wrong way to go please yell---especially if you are
>> not reflected in the 15 folks who took part in the visual hum.
>
> My inclination is for option (2) (all MAYs).
>
> FWIW, I did not attend the last IETF.

Likewise.

As a note, I do not see this as a comment on the technology or the 
modifications.  What I don't like is the concept that new TCP 
standards track documents would define what all TCP implementations 
implement.  Instead they should just define how to implement a 
particular modification if a vendor chooses to do so.  If we need to 
mandate what vendors must implement in order to claim compliance with 
'TCP', we need to update RFC 1122 or write a normative version of the 
TCP roadmap document.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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