IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Mitesh Dalal \(mdalal\)" <mdalal@cisco.com> Tue, 25 September 2007 18:34 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 1IaFFI-0003xe-Dk; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:34:56 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaFFG-0003mI-Ld for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:34:54 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaFFG-0000UW-94 for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:34:54 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,296,1186383600"; d="scan'208";a="527942080"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2007 11:34:53 -0700
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l8PIYrfQ003387; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:34:53 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l8PIXtbL003969; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:34:53 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); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:34:50 -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: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:34:50 -0700
Message-ID: <13D1EAB852BE194C94773A947138483D041D8B78@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070925024708.1E6CA2A7A80@lawyers.icir.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
Thread-Index: Acf/H5bWN+IrF2Y7QUOa8GQzOraOFwAglvmw
From: "Mitesh Dalal \(mdalal\)" <mdalal@cisco.com>
To: <mallman@icir.org>, "Joe Touch" <touch@ISI.EDU>, <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Sep 2007 18:34:50.0960 (UTC) FILETIME=[C219BD00:01C7FFA2]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1325; t=1190745293; x=1191609293; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mdalal@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Mitesh=20Dalal=20\(mdalal\)=22=20<mdalal@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[tcpm]=20tcpsecure=3A=20how=20strong=20to=20recommend ?=20 |Sender:=20; bh=gWTMZc+MPpWjMYjgQvm8d5yF3b7YfK4nu3UU0/xKKNY=; b=mfXpNCzcF9yw05vZWB98maBJqrUD+Pu8EUx9qkt/6rho2k9Y+NM7B5yLyoWBdnk6tyoKb4On SMfOsFYl7lNfAmzs3ZyWL1VaWcQMtBD/L5KmWymm7TXuw1VIJnYFmk/CsP9xhaAkeEYnWWoRCe Q9iw1+uwievDc8iAavEbpl238=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=mdalal@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d
Cc:
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

A point to note is that we neither obsolete nor update rfc793, so if we
make a requirement as SHOULD or MUST does not cause an implementation to
go out of spec (just as in RFC3168 makes SHOULD/MUST recommendations,
but does not mean that
all rfc793 implementations are out of spec)

The whole discussion becomes relevant only if we are really updating
rfc793, so as long as you see these changes as standalone, the question
of SHOULD/MUST/MAY  become self explanatory in the right context. 

So, in that sense I propose the changes as MUST. If an implementation
claims
compliance with these changes, than this (MUST) is the way it has to be
implemented.

my 0.02
Mitesh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Allman [mailto:mallman@icir.org] 
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 7:47 PM
> To: Joe Touch
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend? 
> 
> 
> > I'd encourage others to weigh in on this. I'm uncomfortable 
> with our 
> > making recommendations to change TCP's fundamental behavior as a 
> > SHOULD on the basis of a handful of representatives.
> 
> Joe, I hear you.  Ted and I chatted today and are also a bit 
> leery here.  We'd very much love to hear from others with opinions.
> 
> allman
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

v2.8.10 | Report a Bug | By Email