Re: [tcpm] Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt-01

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Wed, 30 July 2008 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1013A68A2; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
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 7B5713A688C for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.467
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.132, 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 BWJ9v8WAR4bX for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-mx06.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4870F3A68A2 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id m6UDBGVF002434; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:11:23 +0300
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.23]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:11:10 +0300
Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:11:10 +0300
Received: from lars.meeting.ietf.org ([10.241.184.208]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:11:09 +0300
Message-Id: <F32F8EC5-70C9-4A7B-A2D2-B00CA43AECFA@nokia.com>
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
To: ext Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080728164013.422D14B9600@kilo.rtfm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:11:04 +0100
References: <20080728042451.C7A174B7AD3@kilo.rtfm.com> <488D6968.9010102@isi.edu> <20080728131254.3DD764B88F7@kilo.rtfm.com> <488DD77D.9070608@isi.edu> <20080728144721.AC9184B905A@kilo.rtfm.com> <488DE021.7070307@isi.edu> <20080728164013.422D14B9600@kilo.rtfm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2008 13:11:10.0096 (UTC) FILETIME=[BC01D100:01C8F245]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt-01
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

On 2008-7-28, at 17:40, ext Eric Rescorla wrote:
> At Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:05:05 -0700,
> Joe Touch wrote:
>> OK; we're dancing around terms here. TCP-AO uses a _separate_  
>> document
>> to specify the out-of-band key mechanism. What that includes can be
>> discussed in that context - e.g., on SAAG.
>
> Well, I think that's a mistake as well.
>
> (1) It's extremely confusing to have two documents.
> (2) There are two issues:
...
> (3) SAAG has no capability to work on anything, and isn't doing so.

My recollection of the history here is that the split into an option  
part done in TCPM and a keying part done somewhere in the SEC area was  
deliberate, and came out of long discussions between TSV, SEC and RTG  
folks.

One motivation was that it seemed unlikely that TCPM needed to be  
involved in the details of the keying effort, past the stage of making  
sure that the necessary hooks were in place. Another was the hope that  
the two efforts could more or less run in parallel. The SEC keying  
effort has been slow to get off the ground.

Unless there are critical reasons to revisit this decision, I'd like  
to avoid it. Anything that delays publication of AO isn't helpful at  
this point.

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