Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward[WasRe:[tcpm] Is this a problem?]

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Sun, 02 December 2007 20:16 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyvF3-0004Kx-RF; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:16:41 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IyvF2-0004IM-AQ for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:16:40 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyvF2-0004Hq-0u for tcpm@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:16:40 -0500
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyvF1-0000cZ-KC for tcpm@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:16:40 -0500
Received: from [75.213.61.14] (14.sub-75-213-61.myvzw.com [75.213.61.14]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lB2KFxIb007263; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:16:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <47531269.9070005@isi.edu>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:15:37 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: MURALI BASHYAM <murali_bashyam@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward[WasRe:[tcpm] Is this a problem?]
References: <491975.14585.qm@web31701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <491975.14585.qm@web31701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0
Cc: Anantha Ramaiah <ananth@cisco.com>, TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions WG <tcpm@ietf.org>, David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com>
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1369824051=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org


MURALI BASHYAM wrote:
...
> Can you think of WHY this shouldn't be done in TCP, with the go-ahead from the application via a socket
> option and/or globally by the adminstrator? 

That would be an implementation decision, which is fine.

However, I don't agree that any of this needs to be explained further.
RFCs are not substitute for undergraduate background in OS and socket
programming techniques.

> I've asked this question quite a few times, and i've not received a satisfactory answer from the list so far, i've heard responses 
>   a) that it is too risky for TCP to do this,
>   b) that it's a flawed application that's causing this, 
>   c) that the OS has failed its responsibility to manage resources, 
> 
> None of these are convincing,

We understand that none of this is convincing you. I don't think you
appreciate that it is you who have not convinced us yet that this is NOT
one of the above.

> when we all agree that it's a protocol vulnerability being exploited by the attacker. 

We never agreed to that; in fact, many of us feel that this is a
protocol feature that you have shown an artificial attack against which
is not necessarily more of a vulnerability than many other attacks
against other TCP features.

In short, you have not shown a problem that needs to be fixed in TCP yet.

Joe

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm