Re: [tcpm] draft-gont-tcp-security

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi, all,

Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[Verizon] wrote:
> Fernando has a draft intended for BCP, that has been discussed somewhat
> on the OPSEC and IETF mailing lists:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-tcp-security-00
> 
> Since it concerns TCP and facets of both TCP implementation and stack
> configuration, TCPM holds the most technical ability to evaluate or
> work on this, in my opinion.
> 
> As I understand, Fernando is interested in having this document done
> as a WG item, but hasn't gotten clear signals as to whether OPSEC or
> TCPM would be more appropriate, or on the relative level of support in
> the WGs to read/review/revise the material.
> 
> It is a big document, but if TCPM'ers could take a look at it and let
> us know if they would support this in TCPM as a WG item, that would be
> very helpful.  Or if you have other thoughts about how to handle it,
> of course share those too :).

I'm not at all clear that the WG needs this document. It summarizes
issues already raised by the WG, and makes recommendations (IMO) in
excess of what the WG has agreed upon for general use.

TCP itself is not a secure protocol, nor is it intended to be.

IMO, if there are operational issues with deploying TCP in environments
under attack, that is an OPSEC issue.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAknjarkACgkQE5f5cImnZrv2GQCfX+X26YXAqZD27LTAwciPSwVz
a6cAn3XXvR96WFECBFr+bK5Gd3Fo75KL
=6D2U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----