IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-25: (with COMMENT)

"touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com> Thu, 23 September 2021 05:19 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD4A83A2015; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 22:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cvkqzwwX3aew; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 22:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52A323A2012; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 22:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=HIwMwp7XUOOoUjN4D2eOq+rDLNIKFdl/OE9WodnH3mg=; b=t8e5yMpPTPDa0N506k3U0B8tpi H4uTG6xGIbKjhIr0bbuW6Ox4rN//OghuXXx7bvpzc5L6QOUnb/uQlNkvnvErMFnx8cmbP7/uml9sq B0MB/k+P4qtsy9T7lwC9dpPg1o2v3LdSc4OGZWBYt2DXCPeYuHAG61Pk1jMZ2rnim7ICDczpUP82O eYX9H2Iri3iK+wKhs0yK20V+7xS+xIt5kwgIq2Sj2t2gqooYBo3usHDynhCh+OZLp5TbFRXd9k0qU 06HrazMq6YlyufPgoaCqrd8XDEkTUq7N6+Qlhh0+L3oHj0+yRxahO8gipe6VlSTDo0oZ4ShkRrSy2 huXN0VGA==;
Received: from cpe-172-114-237-88.socal.res.rr.com ([172.114.237.88]:54139 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1mTH8C-002dZC-Bd; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 01:18:53 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_78F2E099-A49C-4105-A9D5-DEDDEE555CDD"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: "touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <163236958629.2342.800968324528950977@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 22:18:45 -0700
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis@ietf.org, "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org
Message-Id: <B5B5067E-4E63-414E-9DDA-6376EE174BE5@strayalpha.com>
References: <163236958629.2342.800968324528950977@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/R9UdyjKST7U9WANHHW8c-P3z51k>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-25: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 23 Sep 2021 05:19:01 -0000

Note below...
—
Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

> On Sep 22, 2021, at 8:59 PM, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-25: No Objection
> ...
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ———————————————————————————————————
> ..
> .
> ** Section 7.
>   In order to fully protect TCP connections (including their control
>   flags) IPsec or the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [36] are the
>   only current effective methods. Other methods discussed in this
>   section may protect the payload
> 
> The text should be more precise on what “protect” means.  IPSec and TCP-AO
> provide different security services.  IPSec will provide confidentiality and
> integrity, but TCP-AO only provides the latter.

It doesn’t have to; see  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-touch-tcp-ao-encrypt <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-touch-tcp-ao-encrypt>

Joe

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email