Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

[Chandrashekhar Appanna <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 11:27:29PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> 
> Chandrashekhar Appanna wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 10:30:30PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Chandrashekhar Appanna wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 02:33:29PM -0500, David Borman wrote:
> >>>>> Ok, Wes and I count four opinions against and two opinions for having  
> >>>>> "Updates: 793" in the header of tcpsecure.  Unless other folks chime  
> >>>>> in, the resolution we see is:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) "Updates: 793" is not put in the header of tcpsecure
> >>>>> 2) When we send tcpsecure up to the IESG, we will note this issue and  
> >>>>> the discussion, and if the IESG feels that is appropriate to have  
> >>>>> "Updates: 793" in the header, then it can be added in.
> >>>>>
> >>>>   My opinion is that since we believe these are 'good changes' and would
> >>>>   expect newer code to follow these recomendataions, 'Updates' would be
> >>>>   appropriate. 
> >
> > That's exactly what I don't expect. I expect these mods to be deployed
> > ONLY where necessary, not in all newer code, FWIW. The idea that this is
> > generally useful is the kind of misperception I would like to avoid...
> > 
> >>   Joe :)
> > 
> >>   While I do notice that you embody 'TCPM', and the chairs are just
> >>   window dressing I would prefer that you
> >>   let us provide out opinions and not jump in to mischaracterize my
> >>   words to your ends ;)
> > 
> >>   I __did not__ say anthying to imply generally useful. But to _me_
> >>   code is key.. it may be that you are more interested in a purely
> >>   academic angle which does not affect the 'working internet'.. now
> >>   I am putting words in your mouth.. are'nt I?
> 
> The working Internet is composed of more than just routers - at least
> that's what I teach my students. ;-)
>

  Well.. good I guess ;)

> You made the case that newer code would add this mod. That implies
> generality I think should be avoided.
>

  When I have some time, I will think through what you think I must
  have meant but for now..

  My opinion as written stands and is directed to the chairs for the
  question they posed. 

  Chandra.
 
> Joe
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkjlu1EACgkQE5f5cImnZrvbAwCgqeCmiyvqDR2lXcqAWec4HC1K
> fHkAoIPvQvgeatS0mam1LoSTRdEWiKry
> =xV9q
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm