IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] SECDIR REVIEW of draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-10.txt

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 16 February 2010 16:44 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 E619428C0D9; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:44:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 uxkuz9KxOEFZ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:44:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 458603A6906; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:44:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [75.215.203.205] (205.sub-75-215-203.myvzw.com [75.215.203.205]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1GGiOpn025228 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:44:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B7ACB68.9020503@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:44:24 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
References: <a123a5d61002121827y2f2b0256u5859790c06819a92@mail.gmail.com> <4B79A54C.7040107@gont.com.ar> <4B79A9BA.5050205@isi.edu> <4B79AEC8.3030506@gont.com.ar> <4B79B270.5060804@isi.edu> <4B79B7D9.8080909@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <4B79B7D9.8080909@gont.com.ar>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig3AC637569631BEAA1B5B5101"
X-MailScanner-ID: o1GGiOpn025228
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] SECDIR REVIEW of draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-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: <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, 16 Feb 2010 16:44:07 -0000


Fernando Gont wrote:
...
> Anyway: For the most part I'm wondering if there's any additional text
> needed to address Phillip's comments. Thoughts? This should be our focus
> at this point in time.

There were two separate points raised, IMO:

- clarification of the role of this doc's recommendations
	The WG was aware of this issue, and there was
	a lot of effort in creating the existing text that
	already considered this perspective. No change needed.

- addressing the larger issue of the role/need of ICMPs
	This is out of scope for this doc. No change needed.

Overall, I think there isn't a need for a change.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email