IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure recommendations

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Mon, 11 February 2008 01:13 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AF813A69BB; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:13:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.634
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.634 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.197, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZREl+wZMF7ja; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:13:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 482D53A69AF; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:13:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE0A3A69AE for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:13:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VrarHw8IEg1T for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:13:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C43A3A69AD for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:13:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (c2-vpn04.isi.edu [128.9.176.213]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1B1EChd009394 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:14:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <47AFA15A.1070006@isi.edu>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:14:02 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
References: <20080206174017.6977C36516E@lawyers.icir.org><47AB293D.8040605@isi.edu><0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5804AC099C@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com><47AF380D.7030400@isi.edu><0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5804AC09CF@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <47AF81B2.5030408@isi.edu> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5804AC09E9@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5804AC09E9@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, mallman@icir.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure recommendations
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.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: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
...
|> If preventing anything that could cause a malicious teardown
|> is critical, then use of strict authentication is required.
|> Implications to the contrary endorse the use of this
|> "protocol robustness" mechanism for true security (a
|> misconception that the title doesn't help abate).
|
| Agreed but again the above statement doesn't help in debate which we are
| having, ie., the strength of the data mitigation. All so far I can
| gather is that : somehow you are saying data mitigation is tied to "data
| plane" and the rest are tied to control plane and hence in one case is a
| SHOULD and the other a MAY. Sounds very dubious to me.

My comments are not intended to convince you to agree with me. I have
made my decision, and explained it, IMO.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHr6FaE5f5cImnZrsRAhB0AJ43csP3MJQrccSJcNkV6zioSt6CYgCdHr2Y
Aho6pzAr2Zjc02rAkn78fj0=
=PoJC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email