Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on the outline of the document

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 25 August 2009 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
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 46C683A6F96 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:39:02 -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 UYBqeTyLn9wr for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E563A6C69 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [70.213.211.43] (43.sub-70-213-211.myvzw.com [70.213.211.43]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7PKacNF021239; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A944B56.5080200@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:36:38 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
References: <4A8CBF98.1070809@gont.com.ar> <4A8D939E.9050008@isi.edu> <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB479B7E7359@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <4A94307E.2080209@gont.com.ar> <4A943CEA.4000905@isi.edu> <4A944A03.1090803@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <4A944A03.1090803@gont.com.ar>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on the outline of the document
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, 25 Aug 2009 20:39:02 -0000

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



Fernando Gont wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>>> e.g., think about the "Rose attack" described in the MSS section. The
>>> attack employs the TCP MSS option (and thus would be included in
>>> "control attacks" according to Joe's outline). However, the attack
>>> attempts to degrade performance. So.. where would the attack be finally
>>> included?
>>> Joe argues that "info leaking" and that port scanning is a "control
>>> attack". But one might argue that port scanning is, in some sense, an
>>> info leaking attack.
>> That's a property of any way of organizing the topics - there are bound
>> to be overlapping cases. 
> 
> I don't think there's overlap in the current structure of the document.

The current document doesn't have the kind of structure I'm suggesting
is important.

>> The issue to me is that the outline I proposed
>> has easily recognized structure to it, and I at least know where various
>> attacks should go (even if they go in one place and are cross-referenced
>> and also discussed in others).
> 
> IMO, the issue here is not whether one knows where to put them, but
> rather whether implementers would know where to find them.
> 
> IMHO, I'd live the main structure "as is", and would add an alternate
> index (e.g., the one you proposed) in an appendix (as David suggested).

I don't see that as a useful way forward.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkqUS1YACgkQE5f5cImnZrtyngCeIu1SCaxiA04zoWuvq3ap12lP
En0AoLemlz2eQCngpm/zpRZgN62iaZ/0
=sR5K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----