Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
...
>> 1) is the AS above reasonable?
> 
> Well, I (some others also pointed out) wouldn't mention router, since
> these mitigations can be/are used in devices not routers per se. But we
> can use this text as a reference for generating the AS. Others may want
> to comment here as well.

Can you suggest a term that's useful? How about something specific:

"Devices with services where both endpoints are typically known, e.g.,
BGP."

>> 2) regarding the RST/SYN/data components:
>> 	- are the MUST/MUST/MAY above reasonable?
>> 	- Or should they be SHOULD/SHOULD/MAY?
>> 	- or something else
> 
> Something else. To me, all the mitigations are equally important and
> hence they  classified as MUST after the AS is in place.

OK, so here are some options:

	a) MUST/MUST/MUST
	b) MUST/MUST/SHOULD
	c) MUST/MUST/MAY

I don't quite understand why we would go with SHOULD for either RST or
SYN individually; if anyone can, it'd be useful to make the case. We can
mark Anantha as being in favor of (a). I would interpret the WG as
*probably* being in favor of (c), since if data was a MAY unqualified,
then at best it's a MAY qualified, BUT I'm not trying to make that case
myself.

I prefer (c), but that's just my individual perspective. I wouldn't care
much which of a-c is used.

Joe

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm