Re: [tcpm] AD Review: draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-09

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Fernando,

See below...

Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hello, Joe,
> 
>> I do agree that it would be useful to avoid the term "proposed", as the
>> WG consensus as I recall it was to document what was implemented and
>> discuss the issues thereof, but not to make a recommendation.
> 
> I agreed to remove any instances of "proposed" (Actually, I really meant
> to eliminate them... it seems I just missed a few of them).
> 
>> I also agree with Lars's suggestion (and Wes's concurrence) that it
>> would be useful to be explicit in the fact that this doc does not make
>> such a recommendation.
> 
> I have no problem with that, either. Would something like this text from
> the soft-errors RFC address this issue?:
> 
>>    We note that the counter-measures discussed in this documentare not 
>>    part of standard TCP behavior and this document does not change that 
>>    state of affairs.  The consensus of the TCPM WG (TCP Maintenance and 
>>    Minor Extensions Working Group) was to document this widespread 
>>    implementation of nonstandard TCP behavior but to not change the 
>>    TCP standard.

Useful to fix the typo (documentare -> document are).

I prefer some of the text Wes provided. The text above just says "we're
not changing the spec". Wes had an additional tone of "and we aren't
even making any recommendations" (e.g., on how to interpret SHOULDs).

Joe