Re: [tcpm] poll for adopting draft-gont-tcp-security

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

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



Lloyd Wood wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2009, at 01:51, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Lloyd Wood wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30 Jun 2009, at 19:32, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've repeatedly said why I don't want to proceed on this path. It puts
>>>> the WG in the position of repeating ourselves on issues we've already
>>>> decided. Specific example - ICMP in-window checking. We acknowledge
>>>> systems do this,
>>>
>>> where is it acknowledged?
>>
>> In Gont's ID.
> 
> What, in the same individual ID you're spending so much energy suggesting
> shouldn't even exist, and which you're dismissing as implementation advice
> outside of the scope of the IETF and have otherwise been trying to prevent
> being adopted as a WG draft?

draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks, not this one.

> How can this be the WG repeating itself on a decided issue, if the WG
> has not
> yet acknowledged this in a WG document in the first place?

The WG acknowledged the icmp-attacks ID, not this one.

> Obviously, it would be entirely unreasonable for someone to argue against
> this document's adoption as a WG item while simultaneously using this same
> document as an example of acknowledgement of decided WG issues not written
> anywhere else, for that would be... well, hypocrisy.

If this document contained only information of decided WG issues,
including WG consensus on those issues, you would be correct. I have
pointed out several cases where that is not the case - and that has been
(and remains) my concern.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkpO8cMACgkQE5f5cImnZru6LACgmnwHac9lRXPC41U4dW4j/xZo
Fe8AoJGyeHw+XvYx/ii5EvG5rCUKrkyH
=31TT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----