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

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Fri, 28 September 2007 19:17 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 1IbLKy-00042q-Mr; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:17:20 -0400
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IbLKw-00040w-NE for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:17:18 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbLKw-00040l-CN for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:17:18 -0400
Received: from pork.icsi.berkeley.edu ([192.150.186.19]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbLKv-0001E8-Ue for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:17:18 -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 l8SJHFwX028201; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:17:15 -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 3CA04FFF890; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:17:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B91972AA2DD; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:16:00 -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: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580409FB0B@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 15:16:00 -0400
Message-Id: <20070928191600.B91972AA2DD@lawyers.icir.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
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="===============1938600008=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

> Well, if the applicability statement is needed for making some forward
> progress of the draft, then we need to do it.

We are certainly open to suggestions from others on alternate ways to
proceed.  But, this seems like it will tease apart the issues so that
maybe we can make some progress.

> Is there any particular format which we are looking at? Lars's email,
> if I remember correctly, also acknowledged the fact that not too many
> RFC's in the past have had these sort of applicability statements in
> place. So wondering any examples/ where to place one such ie., should
> it be a separate section like "Security considerations" ?

My advice is to find an example.  I don't have one handy.  But, do
something reasonable so that the statement stands out.  I.e., make it a
(sub-)section or indent it under the words "applicability statement" or
whatever.  Just make sure we all know where it is without having to
guess.

allman



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