Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00

+1

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
<ananth@cisco.com>wrote:

>
> +1
>
> FWIW, there is a recent proposal which talks about enhancing TCP
> checksums as well :-
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-anumita-tcpm-stronger-checksum/
>
> The above proposal tries to leverage on the TCP alternate checksum
> option. My thinking it may be useful to have a "TCP generalized checksum
> option" which can give the flexibility for a TCP stack to choose from a
> set of checksum algorithms (of course the default stays what it is today
> ;-)
>
> -Anantha
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Hagen Paul Pfeifer
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:36 AM
> > To: Lars Eggert
> > Cc: tcpm@ietf.org Extensions
> > Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
> >
> > * Lars Eggert | 2010-06-09 19:28:14 [+0300]:
> >
> > >Quite possibly the most boring RFC ever. But at least it's short.
> > >Comments welcome.
> >
> > Lars, I thought about RFC 1145 "TCP Alternate Checksum
> > Options", there are no real shortcomings in the RFC. It is
> > not _widely_ deployed but there is no real security concern
> > like say T/TCP.
> >
> > I thought only superseded or defective RFCs can be declared
> > historic? I mean TCP Alternate Checksum Options _can
> > eventually_ useful in the future for example Interplanetary
> > TCP. Maybe some military sites already employ RFC 1145.
> >
> > HGN
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcpm mailing list
> > tcpm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>