IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on the outline of the document

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Tue, 25 August 2009 21:41 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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 174D43A6882 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.619, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 5KtA5XgX0MAi for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.xmundo.net (smtp1.xmundo.net [201.216.232.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9DB43A67F8 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from venus.xmundo.net (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]) by smtp1.xmundo.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD146B65C5; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:41:26 -0300 (ART)
Received: from [192.168.0.136] (129-130-17-190.fibertel.com.ar [190.17.130.129]) (authenticated bits=0) by venus.xmundo.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n7PLf602007820; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:41:07 -0300
Message-ID: <4A945A72.7040303@gont.com.ar>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:41:06 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
References: <4A8CBF98.1070809@gont.com.ar> <4A8D939E.9050008@isi.edu> <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB479B7E7359@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <4A94307E.2080209@gont.com.ar> <4A943CEA.4000905@isi.edu> <4A944A03.1090803@gont.com.ar> <4A944B56.5080200@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4A944B56.5080200@isi.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:41:21 -0300 (ART)
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on the outline of the document
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: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:41:20 -0000

Joe Touch wrote:

>>> The issue to me is that the outline I proposed
>>> has easily recognized structure to it, and I at least know where various
>>> attacks should go (even if they go in one place and are cross-referenced
>>> and also discussed in others).
>> IMO, the issue here is not whether one knows where to put them, but
>> rather whether implementers would know where to find them.
> 
>> IMHO, I'd live the main structure "as is", and would add an alternate
>> index (e.g., the one you proposed) in an appendix (as David suggested).
> 
> I don't see that as a useful way forward.

Well, no need to say that I have no problem to change the outline if the
wg feels that's the best way forward....

Also, regardless of our possible disagreement on this issue, your input
is always appreciated.

Thanks!

Kind regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email