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

["Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <[e-mail]>]

 
> Second, security is increasingly a big deal everywhere. The 
> bigger a deal it is, the more likely true authentication - in 
> the form of either IPsec, TCP/MD5, or the latter's successors 
> - would be the appropriate solution to protect Internet 
> infrastructure.

TCP secure is about some modifications to make TCP robust in presense of
some spoofed segments. TCP/MD5/Ipsec etc., are security solutions which
are intended to protect TCP from a variety of cases.

> The more I hear about what this document intends and why it 
> intends it, the less it sounds like a standards-track anything.

We are trying to focus on the strength of mitigations of the
recommendations which is the last pending issue. I think we are
digressing here from the original intent of this thread, Mark asked me
why I believe these mitigations are SHOULD and I gave my opinion. 

-Anantha


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