Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?

Tim Shepard <> Wed, 26 September 2007 11:43 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaVIh-000348-GQ; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:43:31 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaVIg-0002lo-Im for; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:43:30 -0400
Received: from [2002:425c:4292::1] (helo=alva.home) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaVIZ-0007pt-IR for; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:43:24 -0400
Received: from shep (helo=alva.home) by alva.home with local-esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1IaVI6-0005N1-00; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:42:54 -0400
From: Tim Shepard <>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:12:07 -0700. <>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:42:53 -0400
Message-Id: <E1IaVI6-0005N1-00@alva.home>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228
Cc:, "Mitesh Dalal \(mdalal\)" <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

> > How's BTNS coming along?   Will we be seeing BGP over BTNS anytime soon?
> > (I've not been following BTNS too closely recently).
> See the Goals and Milestones at:

Cool.  But that is only a (partial) answer to my first question.  From
the status of Goals and Milestones on that IETF WG charter page, I
cannot tell if the result of the BTNS WG is something that is
sufficiently far along that "go do BTNS" is a viable alternative to
this "tcpsecure" draft.  Presumably I could read all the drafts that
are there and form my own opnion, but the queue of things that I ought
to read soon is much deeper than what I will be able to read soon.

(For those attempting to follow along... I believe the need that
 triggered this tcpsecure draft was also (one of?) the trigger(s) that
 led to the BTNS WG effort.    This tcpsecure draft is a collection of
 hacks (which appear to solve the problems as we understand them now)
 while the BTNS effort was started in an attempt to solve the problem
 in an architecturally correct and more robust way.)

At some point there's a decision to be made, recommend what's in the
tcpsecure draft, or recommend what BTNS has produced.

So I ask: is BTNS succeeding such that it is a viable alternative to
this tcpsecure draft?

			-Tim Shepard

tcpm mailing list