Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <> Mon, 29 September 2008 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8BE28C11E; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D0428C114 for <>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.016
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.583, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HpIZ6KCvIyuV for <>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7266428C110 for <>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,332,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="165056058"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 29 Sep 2008 16:14:43 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m8TGEhq1014939; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:14:43 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8TGEhQ8023776; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:14:43 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:14:43 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:14:47 -0700
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
Thread-Index: AckiR8oje1QupBQJTiGSc6DWkxBMzQABK5UQ
References: <> <> <>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <>
To: Lars Eggert <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Sep 2008 16:14:43.0501 (UTC) FILETIME=[7BB4CDD0:01C9224E]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1612; t=1222704883; x=1223568883; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;;; z=From:=20=22Anantha=20Ramaiah=20(ananth)=22=20<ananth@cisco .com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[tcpm]=20another=20review=20of=20draft- ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10] |Sender:=20; bh=blgS6xaJcohYzXoJA+/i+8m9JBEagvPIOTQpUz6x2VA=; b=muntB462m2w0yBXpfRTQ8isVnHlh56coKpOiy+SOq7yaFE/BJXq/kVVQq3 7/789h/wvplXy5JBDCyjdof/WlL5wyeH70Gvg0Ac5+2lhPyZzxwiDV+3jBBk S/2E92iDFL;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4;; dkim=pass ( sig from verified; );
Cc:, Alfred HÎnes <>, "Mitesh Dalal (mdalal)" <>,
Subject: Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Confused here. The TCP timestamps, SACK etc., are NOT specified in RFC 793. Hence they don't update RFC 793 in any sense, these are independent.

Now, RFC 2001 is a separate RFC by itself which was obsoleted by RFC 2581. Yes, this is pretty close since this talks about congestion control which is central to TCP, so may be it updates some sections of RFC 793, I haven't taken a close look.

Tcpsecure on the other hand does update the processing rules of 793 ( pl see sections 3.2, 4.2, and 5.2), and hence Alfred's point makes sense to me. 
FWIW, I never thought about this until Alfred brought this point up, IMO, this is a good point.


-----Original Message-----
From: Lars Eggert [] 
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 8:26 AM
To: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
Cc: Alfred HÎnes;; Mitesh Dalal (mdalal);
Subject: Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]


(individual hat on)

On 2008-9-29, at 0:08, ext Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> In particular, regarding your observation of mentioning what the 
> document is doing, I agree that we should mention that it "updates 
> 793". I am hoping that nobody has any objection to this point.

since this document specifies an optional component to TCP, I'd argue that it should not update RFC793. If you look at the RFC Editor page, almost no other RFC updates RFC793, because even widely-deployed extensions (timestamps, SACK, etc.) are all optional. Even RFC2581 doesn't update RFC793.

tcpm mailing list