Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Mon, 22 March 2010 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ananth@cisco.com>
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 F28643A682E for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.034
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.034 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.565, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 HEITTF9embl3 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E0A3A67E3 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEANpSp0urR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACbJHOkLJgthH0Egx4
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.51,289,1267401600"; d="scan'208";a="103968198"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2010 18:25:10 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2MIP9jQ016461; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:25:09 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:25:10 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:25:09 -0700
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58092849D3@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100322180607.AC1BFB8FD48@lawyers.icir.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03
Thread-Index: AcrJ6l4+eAqiGQ/bQlSUWtCR+IgbyAAAXsuA
References: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB47DF997795@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <20100322180607.AC1BFB8FD48@lawyers.icir.org>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: mallman@icir.org, "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2010 18:25:10.0004 (UTC) FILETIME=[0151A340:01CAC9ED]
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03
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: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:24:53 -0000

Mark brings up a good point, IMO. My thinking here is that ISN
generation RFC (1948) is an informational RFC and did really update RFC
793. (may be RFC 793 is very holy and you can't really have a bis for
that? ;-) Following the same analogy, this draft can be a standalone
draft which recommends that something can be done as it is structured
currently. OTOH, the same text can be folded as part of the RFC1323bis
as well. Looks like it is boiling down to be a procedural question here
?

Just my few cents,
-Anantha 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Mark Allman
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:06 AM
> To: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of 
> draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03
> 
> 
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03
> > 
> > Please respond if you either:
> > 
> > (1) Support making this document a WG document with the
> >     target for BCP.
> > 
> > (2) Oppose making this document a WG document.
> > 
> > Of course, other comments are also welcome :).
> 
> Well...  Um... Something Else.
> 
> Thoughts:
> 
>   - First, its fine technology.  I find the security 
> implications to be
>     pretty dubious (an attacker guessing a TS and then leveraging that
>     seems a Pretty Damned Remote Possibility).  But, the connection
>     identifier re-use business is nice enough.
> 
>     So, I think we should take on this work in some fashion (which is
>     not exactly what (1) indicates in taking "this document [...] for
>     BCP").
> 
>   - But, to me, the right thing to do here is to roll these 
> changes into
>     the work item this WG already has going: 1323bis.  Clearly how to
>     generate timestamps (section 2 of the Gont I-D) is within 
> bounds for
>     that document.  In addition, section 3 of the Gont document can
>     readily be viewed as another application of timestamps (a la RTTM
>     & PAWS).  
> 
>   - So, I don't know why we'd spin off a second document when we are
>     already updating the main document in this space.  TCP is 
> fragmented
>     enough and so when we can fit things together we should.  Further,
>     its one less document this WG will have to food fight over.
> 
>   - Why straight to BCP?  I don't really have any technological issues
>     here I want to flog, but it strikes me as pretty weird to move
>     a mechanism like this right to BCP.  Even if I don't have a lot of
>     technical heartburn, we seemingly have a 'standards track' for a
>     reason. 
> 
> My two cents ...
> 
> allman
> 
> 
> 
>