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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
...
>> 	b) chatter during valid RSTs
> 
> You mean an extra RTO? Ok, fair enough. But, benefits outweigh
> drawbacks, I would think.

FWIW, I mean *responding* to a RST.

>> 	c) IPR encumberance
> 
> AFAIK, this is not an issue as this was beaten to death before.

It will remain the context under which a decision is made until IPR is
removed. Each party weighing in needs to decide how that impacts their
decision - and whether they want to impose it as a requirement on the
community.

>> ...
>>>> There's no MUST in that logic, any more than 'you MUST deploy 
>>>> IPsec/BTNS/TCP-MD5++'.
>>> I am assuming it is a conditional MUST like "if you need 
>> security then 
>>> use TCP MD5", correct? Is "conditional MUST = SHOULD" ?
>> It is a conditional SHOULD, i.e., a SHOULD with a caveat. 
>> From the RFC2119-level, IMO that's a MAY with explanation.
> 
> Curious : Are you ok tagging the TCP secure mitigations with a
> "conditional SHOULD" or "SHOULD with caveat" or "an applicability
> statement with a SHOULD"? I am assuming that these are equivalent to MAY
> with explanation? 

I'm saying that MAY with explanation is sufficient. There's no point in
a SHOULD unless you want to have the WG make a recommendation for
others. Even with context, this still amounts to forcing a solution. If
it's really all that useful and people aren't worried about the
complexity or IPR, they'll implement it. Let them decide.

Joe

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm