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
- [tcpm] Fwd: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-… Lars Eggert
- Re: [tcpm] [tsv-area] Fwd: Secdir Review of draft… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] [tsv-area] Fwd: Secdir Review of draft… Lars Eggert
- [tcpm] [Fwd: Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-s… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] Fwd: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-si… Lars Eggert