[tcpm] FW: Wes - in re: The GONT draft on TCP Security should be advanced -I Agree

"Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]" <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov> Tue, 30 June 2009 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov>
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 3709F3A6962 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 mqiFxuManQrY for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ndmsnpf02.ndc.nasa.gov (ndmsnpf02.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB1A63A69F2 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ndjsppt02.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsppt02.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.1.101]) by ndmsnpf02.ndc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DA377BA34 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:33:28 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ndjshub04.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjshub04.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.4.163]) by ndjsppt02.ndc.nasa.gov (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n5UKXRBg003798 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:33:27 -0500
Received: from NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov ([198.117.4.166]) by ndjshub04.ndc.nasa.gov ([198.117.4.163]) with mapi; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:33:27 -0500
From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]" <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov>
To: tcpm Extensions WG <tcpm@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:33:26 -0500
Thread-Topic: Wes - in re: The GONT draft on TCP Security should be advanced -I Agree
Thread-Index: Acn5mc9Zfv+jkNgdRZaUo0QVyhcKBQAKCB1g
Message-ID: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB2217BA0635@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.7400:2.4.4, 1.2.40, 4.0.166 definitions=2009-06-30_16:2009-06-25, 2009-06-30, 2009-06-30 signatures=0
Subject: [tcpm] FW: Wes - in re: The GONT draft on TCP Security should be advanced -I Agree
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: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:34:17 -0000

FYI - I received this off-list, but with the request to forward
it to TCPM ...

---------------------------
Wes Eddy
Network & Systems Architect
Verizon FNS / NASA GRC
Office: (216) 433-6682
---------------------------

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Todd Glassey CISM CIFI [mailto:tglassey@earthlink.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:45 AM
>To: weddy@grc.nasa.gov; david.borman@windriver.com
>Subject: Wes - in re: The GONT draft on TCP Security should be advanced
>-I Agree
>
>Wes/David
>
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04641.html
>
>the TCP Security Draft is very important and will come to fill a unique
>niche requirement for creating an anchoring document to leverage
>controls against in the Audit Community and InfoSec auditor's world and
>as such this document has the potential to become a mainstay of the
>Audit world as well by referring to the expertise of the IETF in its
>review and assessment of TCP itself.
>
>Additionally one needs to be done specifically for UDP and the protocols
>which rely on it, but that's another issue all together.
>
>How I would approach this it to split the project into pieces (vertical
>silos) and have each silo create a set of deliverables. Because of the
>size of this project I would take it on with the following proviso -
>that being that if the project stalls it will be shelved and taken off
>the WG's  agenda.
>
>What I think is that there are parts of the standard-analysis which are
>important to varying communities and they will rally to provide those
>engineering resources to the WG to accomplish the vetting necessary to
>advance this effort.
>
>Todd Glassey, General Troublemaker