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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Mon, 29 September 2008 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C823A693C; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 083B23A693C for <>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PUCEZ4oQ7EtW for <>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4F83A6870 for <>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8THRYBP001680 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:27:34 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc: "Mitesh Dalal (mdalal)" <>, Alfred HÎnes <>,,
Subject: Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
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: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hash: SHA1

This has been the big issue with this doc from the beginning, and I've
been raising it from the beginning. Other docs describe extensions to
the protocol, but don't change the base protocol. This one does, which
has always been my broadest concern.

It's a little odd to hear anyone think this is the first time this was


Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> Lars,
> Confused here. The TCP timestamps, SACK etc., are NOT specified in RFC 793. Hence they don't update RFC 793 in any sense, these are independent.
> Now, RFC 2001 is a separate RFC by itself which was obsoleted by RFC 2581. Yes, this is pretty close since this talks about congestion control which is central to TCP, so may be it updates some sections of RFC 793, I haven't taken a close look.
> Tcpsecure on the other hand does update the processing rules of 793 ( pl see sections 3.2, 4.2, and 5.2), and hence Alfred's point makes sense to me. 
> FWIW, I never thought about this until Alfred brought this point up, IMO, this is a good point.
> -Anantha
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Eggert [] 
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 8:26 AM
> To: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
> Cc: Alfred HÎnes;; Mitesh Dalal (mdalal);
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
> Hi,
> (individual hat on)
> On 2008-9-29, at 0:08, ext Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
>> In particular, regarding your observation of mentioning what the 
>> document is doing, I agree that we should mention that it "updates 
>> 793". I am hoping that nobody has any objection to this point.
> since this document specifies an optional component to TCP, I'd argue that it should not update RFC793. If you look at the RFC Editor page, almost no other RFC updates RFC793, because even widely-deployed extensions (timestamps, SACK, etc.) are all optional. Even RFC2581 doesn't update RFC793.
> Lars
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -

tcpm mailing list