Re: [tcpm] comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-05

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Sun, 14 June 2009 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E27C28C0F7 for <>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.949
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ql-wT+-PCaLY for <>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2897A28C0ED for <>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n5EF1RLJ024898; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:01:27 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc: "" <>, Fernando Gont <>, Fernando Gont <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:02:00 -0000

Hash: SHA1

Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon] wrote:
> As both co-chair and TCPM participant, I'm not really
> comfortable with Appendix B of this document which
> reads a lot like an advertisement.  Even though I
> know it's well-intentioned, it seems like we'd set
> a bad precedent if we got into the habit of putting
> sponsor-plugs into the appendices of our documents.
> I don't think we lose anything by leaving that
> appendix out completely.
> What does the WG think?

I think it ought to be OK to say "this work supported by..." or other
disclaimers in the Ack's section.

The text in question is more than a plug; it's recommended action.
That's clearly out of scope for an informational doc; it would require
BCP status to have such guidance, and the WG would need to agree that
such guidance is appropriate.

In general, it's also far too specific -- i.e., such guidance is more
appropriately "contact the authorities and report...", and would then
give a list of appropriate entities, rather than endorsing or
recommending a single party.


> To speed analysis, the text in question is:
> Appendix B. Advice and guidance to vendors
>    Vendors are urged to contact CPNI ( if they
>    think they may be affected by the issues described in this document.
>    As the lead coordination center for these issues, CPNI is well placed
>    to give advice and guidance as required.
>    CPNI works extensively with government departments and agencies,
>    commercial organizations and the academic community to research
>    vulnerabilities and potential threats to IT systems especially where
>    they may have an impact on Critical National Infrastructure's (CNI).
>    Other ways to contact CPNI, plus CPNI's PGP public key, are available
>    at .
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -