Re: [tcpm] TCPM and draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Jari,

Jari Arkko wrote:
> Joe,
> 
>> The short answer is that there wasn't rough consensus for these changes
>> in the WG, as explained in the note in the text.
>>   
> 
> Ok. And by the way, I didn't mean to imply that all of the changes
> should be adopted. But at least some of them seem... pretty reasonable
> and universal. Like ignoring source quench, for instance. But I admit
> that my knowledge of TCP practices is limited.

The WG decided to document "what is", and to indicate for each item
whether it was consistent with existing specs or not.

> However, *if* the document is right that the techniques are widely
> implemented, it is interesting that the WG does not agree that they are
> universally appropriate. Is (1) the reality different from what the
> document claims, (2) are these practices causing harm in the real world,
> or (3) is the working group opinion incorrect?

I don't think anyone wants the IETF to rubber-stamp deployed code for
that reason alone (e.g., consider Linux's inclusion of deprecated T/TCP,
or use of nonstandard TCP windowing). There are times it's useful to
modify the standards accordingly, there are times it's useful to declare
it a bug (RFC2525), and there are times - such as this one - where we
have no rough consensus on which way to go, but agree that it's useful
to know what's actually out there.

Joe