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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 23 March 2010 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
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 11AAF3A6928 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.781
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.781 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
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 yf5D7vXn-jiI for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93DBB3A6830 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.28.166] (dhcp-wireless-open-abg-28-166.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.28.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2NG1BOp000852 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BA8E5C6.8010509@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:01:10 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov>
References: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB47DF997795@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB47DF997795@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig27C90D7884A7DB13DE59C888"
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <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: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:03:56 -0000

Yet another attempt to redefine TCP fields as providing "security".

By randomizing the initial timestamp, we now need to keep per-connection
timestamp offsets, which increases both state and processing. It also
means that incoming connections to socket pairs in TIME_WAIT would
silently fail roughly half the time, requiring undue timeouts.

I don't think this represents an appropriate recommendation for the
community, and oppose making it a WG doc.

Joe

Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP] wrote:
> Hello, Fernando has made an update to his draft on the
> generation of TCP timestamps, and asked us to poll the
> TCPM WG to have this particular document adopted as a
> WG draft for BCP.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03
> 
> This was briefly discussed at IETF 73 in Minneapolis,
> and the decision was delayed until more people had read
> it.
> 
> 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 :).
> 
> It's relatively short, so if people could respond in the
> next 2 weeks, this would allow us to determine consensus
> during the week of the IETF meeting.
> 
> 
> --
> Wes Eddy
> MTI Systems
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm