Re: [tcpm] Feedback request on draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security

<> Tue, 02 March 2010 08:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2620428C0E9 for <>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 00:16:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 48nzF-GgD6dr for <>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 00:16:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A8E3A8307 for <>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 00:16:38 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: []
Received: (qmail 1114 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2010 08:16:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Mar 2010 08:16:37 -0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:16:37 +0000
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:16:35 +0000
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Feedback request on draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security
Thread-Index: Acq54Kzv5GucLDKOSXaA8Lz7Jt9q9A==
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>, <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback request on draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:16:40 -0000

On 2 Mar 2010, at 01:28, Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP] wrote:

> I don't know if you've read the document under discussion, but it already includes a reference to the CPNI security assessment you mention including a reference to, and this reference immediately follows the text I suggested clarifying to identify TCPM as the document source.

No, it includes it as an inline comment - i.e. it does not have the status of an explicit reference. It's already well on its way to being elided as unnecessary as history is rewritten.

> My suggestion was to put a sentence in that makes the context of the document clear,

by removing any mention of security/threats?

> as a TCPM product, with recommendations that have been reviewed by TCPM.  It shouldn't be controversial that the WG takes ownership of a WG product.

You're right, that shouldn't be controversial. That it is says much about the way that this WG takes ownership.


Lloyd Wood