Re: [tcpm] poll for adopting draft-gont-tcp-security

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Joe Touch wrote:

> I don't understand why TCP must be able to be implemented in a secure
> fashion. 

Because we don't want our systems to be trivially hacked. C'mon Joe...
Should we CC this thread to full-disclosure & bugtraq... it will
probably make the day of most of the subscribers. I really feel tempted
to do so. (I also feel tempted to CC this thread to every relevant
mailing-list of open source OSes).




> It would be more useful, IMO, to at least admit that and change the
> above to acknowledge that, e.g., (changing the wording and the level
> down to SHOULD):
> 
> - TCP SHOULD be able to be implemented in a way that mitigates, to the
> extent possible, the impact of exploitable conditions leading to:

Do we really need to nit-pick at every document and waste cycles in
end-less discussions that get nowhere, instead of getting stuff done?

Why don't we work on the document itself? Is there anything you think
could be improved? Post feedback, and let's improve the document.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1