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

MURALI BASHYAM wrote:
...
>>> If we agree that it's a violation, then it's a standards track  
>>> nature of draft.
>> If it changes TCP, in this case adding a new User/TCP interface, then  
>> it should be on the standards track.
> 
> I agree with your suggestions, a new User/TCP interface is needed to
> enable the ZWP timer specificially, and  have TCP inform the app to
> ensure  that we limit the duration of the connection in the ZWP
> state. It's upto the application to enable the timer and take the
> abort action when the timer expires. But TCP will have to take abort
> action in the scenario where the application has already closed the
> connection.
> 
> A separate document (informational) can be written to describe how
> the application can use the new interface, and also discuss the DoS
> implications of the ZWP state and provide recommendations on a
> solution and what it needs to accomplish.

It might be more useful to write a single document. That doc should
focus on the first item above - convincing the WG to agree this is a
"violation" or requires a TCP-level solution. It would also explain why
considering this a DOS attack that needs to be prevented is useful.

Ultimately, *IF* we agree to change TCP, then that doc would be expanded
to include the TCP interface changes and application use example. It
should also include solutions that do not change the TCP interface,
since it would be unlikely this would be a required immediate change
even if it were to go forward.

Joe

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

Attachment: signature.asc