Re: [tcpm] comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-05

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> Sun, 14 June 2009 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
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 9790228C0E1 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.644
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.605, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
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 0NtzG4Lql1kA for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.enyo.de (mail.enyo.de [212.9.189.167]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8CE28C0DD for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from deneb.vpn.enyo.de ([212.9.189.177] helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1MFprW-0001Zw-Dz; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:35:06 +0200
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <fw@deneb.enyo.de>) id 1MFprW-0005OO-0f; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:35:06 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: "Eddy\, Wesley M. \(GRC-MS00\)\[Verizon\]" <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov>
References: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB221796D53C@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB221796D53D@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:35:05 +0200
In-Reply-To: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB221796D53D@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> (Wesley M. Eddy's message of "Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:32:57 -0500")
Message-ID: <87ljnvey5y.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:35:03 -0000

* Wesley M. Eddy:

> As both co-chair and TCPM participant, I'm not really
> comfortable with Appendix B of this document which
> reads a lot like an advertisement.  Even though I
> know it's well-intentioned, it seems like we'd set
> a bad precedent if we got into the habit of putting
> sponsor-plugs into the appendices of our documents.
> I don't think we lose anything by leaving that
> appendix out completely.
>
> What does the WG think?

I think it should go.

(Disclaimer: I don't like the way UNIRAS/CPNI handled some
disclosures, but I think this isn't important in this context.)