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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

-----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-----