Re: [tcpm] exegesis of 'Updates' -- was: ... review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 30 September 2008 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C29F3A6BCF; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
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 308013A6800; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 3hM7ufbE340q; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CA983A691B; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.45] (pool-71-106-119-240.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.119.240]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8UMU6K6019036 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48E2A86E.5050602@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:30:06 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?QWxmcmVkIO+/vQ==?= <ah@tr-sys.de>
References: <200809302002.WAA09122@TR-Sys.de>
In-Reply-To: <200809302002.WAA09122@TR-Sys.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, iesg@iesg.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] exegesis of 'Updates' -- was: ... review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Alfred � wrote:
...
> Therefore my recommendation:
> 
> +++   Be very careful with "Obsoletes", but be generous
> +++   with "Updates", for the benefit of RFC readers !

Well, we used to have a general rule:

	Be conservative in what you send,
	be liberal in what you receive.

The second rule is bent by tcpsecure, which interprets unexpected
segments as attacks needing defense.

As a result, we're here considering reasons not to put Updates in the
header, to avoid too strongly implying that all TCPs everywhere need to
be augmented with an IPR-encumbered poor substitute for true security.

My conclusion is that, although I agree with Alfred in spirit, I can't
see why we should be more liberal with Updates than we are with segments
we receive.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjiqG4ACgkQE5f5cImnZruw4wCcDIHsrjF8mTwwMRM1N8YB7vc0
SRYAnj6ZXFfzhFgzCzUgIMofGUu2SVgj
=ZAPQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm