Re: [tcpm] WGLC: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-10.txt

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Mon, 29 September 2008 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FA9C3A698A; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
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 9C1DA3A6B0F for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 34uDNU3rp0IQ for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1CFD3A6940 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [75.215.184.156] (156.sub-75-215-184.myvzw.com [75.215.184.156]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8TGLiNa009761 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48E10094.6030204@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:21:40 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
References: <FE34F27F-8DDF-4C94-BC6E-E2ABF6000309@windriver.com> <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E409513@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov> <24D2F5D3-93E7-4B64-BA96-2086F3E5754E@windriver.com> <20080906013831.GD2074@zod.isi.edu> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5805DF4359@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <6FDABCB8-7EDA-40A2-A40A-9F768396A2D2@windriver.com> <48E0EBDE.5060403@isi.edu> <20080929151959.GA54282@zod.isi.edu> <48E0F501.90001@isi.edu> <20080929154015.GB54282@zod.isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20080929154015.GB54282@zod.isi.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <ananth@cisco.com>, tcpm@ietf.org, David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com>, "Mitesh Dalal \(mdalal\)" <mdalal@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-10.txt
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

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



Ted Faber wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 08:32:17AM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Ted Faber wrote:
>>> If the authors are cool with a pointer to 4953 for derivations, I am,
>>> too, but the final numbers should appear here as well.
>> Agreed - a summary statement and the final numbers or conclusions from
>> 4953 need to be contained in this doc.
> 
> Just to be clear, I don't have a preference, and apparently I wasn't
> quite clear enough on thst.
> 
> If the authors are determined to include the derivation here, that's
> fine with me, as it's fine with me to point off to 4953.  My only 2
> concerns are that the final figures be simplified in this draft and that
> the two documents agree(!).

IMO, the whole point of developing 4953 was to document the problem and
define its impact mathematically so that other RFCs could refer to it.

This doc certainly needs to refer to the problem and the resulting
analysis, but there's no utility in replicating the derivations in 4953.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkjhAJQACgkQE5f5cImnZrsYVgCgoiGrFMcKiEKhl4BeBYZFF62p
QQwAn1eo5zf0uOmVh3QCW98AwbIFJ2zB
=1ZFH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm