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

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Fri, 28 September 2007 18:18 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbKQ3-0001rv-GK; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:18:31 -0400
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IbKQ2-0001oB-8X for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:18:30 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbKQ1-0001o2-UJ for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:18:29 -0400
Received: from pork.icsi.berkeley.edu ([192.150.186.19]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbKQ1-0008KQ-IV for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:18:29 -0400
Received: from guns.icir.org (adsl-69-222-35-58.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [69.222.35.58]) by pork.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l8SIILhs026886; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:18:21 -0700
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (adsl-69-222-35-58.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [69.222.35.58]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7154FFF007; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:18:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 245AB2A9F8D; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:17:07 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5804051D95@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR)
Song-of-the-Day: Car Phone
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:17:07 -0400
Message-Id: <20070928181707.245AB2A9F8D@lawyers.icir.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mallman@icir.org
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0861328810=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

(Hat on.  I just talked to Ted about this and he is in agreement with
this request, but has not seen the text I am about to type ...)

It seems to me that this discussion is really divergent because there is
no applicability statement in the document, per Lars' comment.  I wonder
if you guys could go off and generate such a statement and then we could
re-visit this question.  I think that would factor things into a
question of "where" this is applicable and then how strongly we want to
advocate these mitigations within that context.  Is that reasonable?

Thanks,
allman



_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm