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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 02 October 2007 21:50 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Icpdn-0002Ve-LF; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:50:55 -0400
Received: from tcpm by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Icpdl-0002VW-TJ for; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:50:53 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Icpdl-0002VO-IW for; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:50:53 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Icpdl-0001eG-4S for; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:50:53 -0400
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l92LobZU009181; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:50:32 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da
Cc:, "Edward A. Gardner" <>, "Mitesh Dalal \(mdalal\)" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1890650205=="

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.,

>> 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:


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

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


tcpm mailing list