Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on the outline of the document

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Thu, 27 August 2009 05:48 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DA73A6D5A for <>; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.58
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l95dLaJbAh+q for <>; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD85128C101 for <>; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7R5loEl017581; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:47:49 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <>
References: <><> <> <><> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on the outline of the document
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:48:37 -0000

Hash: SHA1

Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hello, Toby,
>> I definitely agree that Joe's structure looks more organised. As he
>> points out, it is impossible to create a comprehensive structure that
>> removes all overlap or contradictions. If you want this document to
>> succeed (rather than join an ever-growing pile of RFCs that no-one
>> outside the IETF have even read) then making it easily readable has
>> to be the first requirement. A significant part of readability is the
>> structure used to present the data in the document. 
> Before bringing this document to the IETF, most major vendors (including
> Cisco, Juniper, Microsoft, and others) received a copy of it, and had
> the chance to review it.

It'd be useful to get input from a high-end server vendor. I would value
their input on TCP security/performance issues more.

As to input from outside the IETF, they're welcome to participate here.
The feedback from the meeting in Stockholm was to start with an outline,
and work the outline first, which is what I thought we were doing.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -