IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] poll for adopting draft-gont-tcp-security

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Wed, 15 July 2009 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@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 9C6CB28C0FA for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 k09B43akkMIc for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 917DA28C0F9 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,406,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="186456584"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Jul 2009 20:44:10 +0000
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n6FKi9sI014474; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:44:09 -0700
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.196]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6FKi9qU027671; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:44:09 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: ayourtch@cisco.com, "'Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]'" <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov>
References: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB2217B28763@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907061824560.337@zippy.stdio.be>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:44:09 -0700
Message-ID: <12fc01ca058d$01176b00$c4f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907061824560.337@zippy.stdio.be>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Thread-Index: Acn+VxQfSK2YCQ5pQnWlLpzDfwi+3gHNdtoA
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2380; t=1247690650; x=1248554650; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[tcpm]=20poll=20for=20adopting=20draft- gont-tcp-security |Sender:=20; bh=CK/qIOzEnjbC1O0dpg0Xh6sqwioE8u8emR3mxFbleBE=; b=O7mVA1cLiR87DrYI9FqMtR3emODseLypVZ4s6LcF8kSShUT4ptFqBcMNKR RWdEXy9M9enVJBVy1KLwNZA987Frcb5Xqw02vKQA1t1OO4sz/5dOkkDaP7Y3 cLWC4PquM4;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Cc: 'tcpm Extensions WG' <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adopting draft-gont-tcp-security
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: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:44:49 -0000

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Andrew Yourtchenko
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:31 AM
> To: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]
> Cc: tcpm Extensions WG
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adopting draft-gont-tcp-security
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon] wrote:
> 
> > TCPMers, there was a thread a while ago about working on
> > draft-gont-tcp-security in this working group that didn't
> > conclusively give us a feeling one way or other:
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04489.html
> >
> > Basically, my understanding is that there are at least a
> > handful of people in the WG that think it should be done
> > here as a WG item (more likely for Informational rather
> > than BCP), and there are also some expressed opinions on
> > why it shouldn't.
> >
> > Given the raw size of the document, if the WG intends to
> > take this document on, then we need some people to clearly
> > commit to putting cycles into review and contributions to
> > the document.  Since it is quite large, and to my knowledge,
> > there hasn't been a specific technical review of the content
> > on this list, but just discussions about if the idea in
> > general is a good or bad thing, we still need to know if
> > people are willing to invest their time and energy in this.
> 
> I think the further development of this document with the balanced 
> approach (cf: 'the requirements' mention and evaluating the 
> mitigations 
> with respect to them) is a useful activity, and as such, 
> would like to 
> commit cycles to it if it gets adopted.

Agreed.  And I will contribute cycles as well.

-d


> thanks,
> andrew
> 
> >
> > Please let us know if there is traction for this in the
> > near term, and/or we can also discuss it in Stockholm.
> >
> > ---------------------------
> > Wes Eddy
> > Network & Systems Architect
> > Verizon FNS / NASA GRC
> > Office: (216) 433-6682
> > ---------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcpm mailing list
> > tcpm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email