Re: [tcpm] [tsv-area] Fwd: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Thu, 02 October 2008 17:24 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 D8CDC28C102; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:24:19 -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 67D1F3A6AE1; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 j9FJ0QrX162e; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42EE63A695B; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [75.215.151.23] (23.sub-75-215-151.myvzw.com [75.215.151.23]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m92HO6FV025727 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48E503B6.7010505@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:24:06 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
References: <20081002093129.5bb80658@cs.columbia.edu> <1ABB0C9F-EAF3-445D-B8E1-58110496291C@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <1ABB0C9F-EAF3-445D-B8E1-58110496291C@nokia.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm Extensions WG <tcpm@ietf.org>, TSV Area <tsv-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [tsv-area] Fwd: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05
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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

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

Hi, Lars,

Are you suggesting we have that discussion there, or that they move this
issue here (e.g., to TCPM or TSVAREA)?

I would expect the latter would be more useful...

Joe

Lars Eggert wrote:
> FYI, this discussion on the main IETF list needs input from transport
> folks. Look at Section 7.3 of draft-stjohns-sipso-05.
> 
> Lars
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "ext Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
>> Date: October 2, 2008 16:31:29 GMT+03:00
>> To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
>> Cc: draft-stjohns-sipso-05@tools.ietf.org, Sam Hartman
>> <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, secdir@mit.edu, ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05
>>
>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 22:12:17 -0400
>> "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>    Steven> Note 7.3.1 on
>>>>    Steven> TCP considerations.  (Also note that 7.3.1 disagrees
>>>>    Steven> with 793 on the treatment of security labels in section
>>>>    Steven> 3.6 of 793.  At the least, this shoudl be noted.
>>>>
>>>> I had completely missed this.  I'll call out the section to the
>>>> transport ADs
>>>>
>>> I should have added: I think the new document is in fact more correct
>>> than 793 -- the 793 scheme would permit various forms of
>>> high-bandwidth covert channels to be set up.  This is an issue that
>>> was not nearly that well understood when 793 was written.  That said,
>>> it is a change to TCP, and needs to be treated as such.
>>>
>> Thinking further -- I suspect that the right thing to do here is for
>> someone to write a short, simple draft amending 793 -- it's handling of
>> the security option is simply wrong, independent of this draft.  I
>> wonder -- what TCPs actually implement even 793?  NetBSD doesn't; I
>> strongly suspect that no BSDs do.  Does Solaris?  Linux?
>>
>>         --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjlA7UACgkQE5f5cImnZrszXQCeNkIxxBZUmEjidZBxwF5RMaDg
sgEAn3aoDE4kcBsV7kglGiXvKbRWZwK6
=fiTu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm