Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Fri, 03 October 2008 05:30 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929053A69CE; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
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 BD22A3A69CE for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.66
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.061, 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 du4IcVr5yr0g for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2613A680E for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.45] (pool-71-106-119-240.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.119.240]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m935UToh018416 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48E5ADF6.9030501@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:30:30 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chandrashekhar Appanna <achandra@cisco.com>
References: <200808140650.IAA05627@TR-Sys.de> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5805DF4A3C@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E56038C@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5805DF4AE2@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E5603CD@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov> <48E2A22A.8000209@isi.edu> <986B5B70-4BD5-46EF-943C-DE588603CF6C@windriver.com> <20081003052554.GC19007@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20081003052554.GC19007@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alfred_=3F?= <ah@tr-sys.de>, tcpm@ietf.org, David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com>, "Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <ananth@cisco.com>, Randy Stewart <randall@lakerest.net>, "Mitesh Dalal \(mdalal\)" <mdalal@cisco.com>, "Eddy, Wesley M. \(GRC-RCN0\)\[VZ\]" <Wesley.M.Eddy@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Chandrashekhar Appanna wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 02:33:29PM -0500, David Borman wrote:
>> Ok, Wes and I count four opinions against and two opinions for having  
>> "Updates: 793" in the header of tcpsecure.  Unless other folks chime  
>> in, the resolution we see is:
>>
>> 1) "Updates: 793" is not put in the header of tcpsecure
>> 2) When we send tcpsecure up to the IESG, we will note this issue and  
>> the discussion, and if the IESG feels that is appropriate to have  
>> "Updates: 793" in the header, then it can be added in.
>>
> 
>   My opinion is that since we believe these are 'good changes' and would
>   expect newer code to follow these recomendataions, 'Updates' would be
>   appropriate. 

That's exactly what I don't expect. I expect these mods to be deployed
ONLY where necessary, not in all newer code, FWIW. The idea that this is
generally useful is the kind of misperception I would like to avoid...

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjlrfUACgkQE5f5cImnZrtMsQCfYjyH2vnVgEteELEXV1G+w70Q
seAAoIc23DQmZ8h88NRqdxmuWnD58vfa
=DUXb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm