IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] TCPM and draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 18 February 2010 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 8C2CD3A8044 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:04:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.421
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.178, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Vjeqby84eYnj for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:04:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B39F3A7D8B for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:04:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D9B02D287; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:06:16 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16HwnlWgvZlt; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:06:16 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7F52D257; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:06:15 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <4B7D9DB6.60204@piuha.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:06:14 +0200
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
References: <20100218175622.61BB028C2E3@core3.amsl.com> <2002D196-D83C-4B44-870C-8E9A94D2D640@nokia.com> <4B7D8B9F.1010608@piuha.net> <4B7D8F55.90406@piuha.net> <4B7D92EB.7010407@isi.edu> <4B7D9655.1050804@piuha.net> <4B7D9A20.7090403@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4B7D9A20.7090403@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCPM and draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:04:41 -0000

Joe,

> I don't think anyone wants the IETF to rubber-stamp deployed code for
> that reason alone

Agreed.

> there are times - such as this one - where we
> have no rough consensus on which way to go

Sure. I guess my issue was that I did not see why this would be the case 
in this particular instance.

Jari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email