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

"Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <ananth@cisco.com> Sat, 29 September 2007 17:35 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 1IbgDi-0006mP-Qt; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:35:14 -0400
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IbgDi-0006ln-0J for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:35:14 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbgDh-0006lf-Mx for tcpm@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:35:13 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbgDg-00046A-Gf for tcpm@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:35:13 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,213,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="227580220"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Sep 2007 10:35:12 -0700
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l8THZBRU028368; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:35:11 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l8THZ91l025372; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:35:09 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:35:08 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:34:46 -0700
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580409FD14@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <46FDEBF4.5010302@isi.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
Thread-Index: AcgCX0czKF+qN/mzQtq7+2jdZiwaSwAVXSFA
From: "Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: "Joe Touch" <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Sep 2007 17:35:08.0968 (UTC) FILETIME=[14B82280:01C802BF]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=909; t=1191087311; x=1191951311; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ananth@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Anantha=20Ramaiah=20\(ananth\)=22=20<ananth@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[tcpm]=20tcpsecure=3A=20how=20strong=20to=20recommend ? |Sender:=20; bh=8XpI2q5o/ZOcGEwYcZY392EPADgO65hNuNzFoxLfcK8=; b=rGfVpSVvI7yGizYlIpdaGSh33g7fMQa69INK80G6GZW2+ScwkyXAXUTpOyyM+/ZmRb1gf+OV b7qOnUnUnMa+ONH/JY6pi0Kds0prvHEABwcvax3fLP1ZdY7PfWvj6/Of;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, mallman@icir.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

 
> 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
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm