Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-10.txt
Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 15 July 2008 17:07 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 078713A6B14; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:07:12 -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 574D03A6AF6 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.724
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 P66DZwhquqPT for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81EF93A6B14 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.168.63] (bet.isi.edu [128.9.168.63]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6FH7SMB013708 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <487CD94E.4010004@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:07:26 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
References: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58057555B0@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58057555B0@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-10.txt
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote: ... | I have added a section called "strength of mitigations". The rationale | for adding this section is that, to clear up the reasoning, for tagging | the mitigations strengths as S/S/M esp. after the "Applicability | statement" is in place. Digging through the responses (textual and | verbal) I don't see a strong technical reasoning for choosing the Data | mitigation as MAY. I request the WG members who voted for MAY to speak | up their technical reasoning. Pl remember that this reasoning is highly | desirable since in future many people may ask the same question and | hence it is prudent to come with a better technical explanation. IMO there was insufficient motivation for making this MUST. I don't feel the document needs to come up with anything "better" than that, which should be easy to state briefly. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIfNlOE5f5cImnZrsRAkKLAJ9/mXDgQzKuMya8xdlIFfrpNroTQgCfZNBz a01ANJnaIPyt9EEMCivsmxU= =rnN1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
- [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-10.txt Internet-Drafts
- [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-10.txt Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-1… Joe Touch