IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Fri, 19 February 2010 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
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 EC7DA3A7B89 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:49:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, 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 mCwVkQVaKrAs for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:49:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35ED93A7A59 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:49:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.97] (pool-71-106-88-10.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.88.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1JNofOH023549 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:50:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B7F23D0.9080900@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:50:40 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Smith, Donald" <Donald.Smith@qwest.com>
References: <20100218175622.61BB028C2E3@core3.amsl.com> <2002D196-D83C-4B44-870C-8E9A94D2D640@nokia.com> <4B7D8B9F.1010608@piuha.net> <4B7D8F55.90406@piuha.net> <4B7ED18B.8070304@isi.edu> <4B7F0F37.7010502@gont.com.ar> <4B7F1258.5060301@isi.edu> <4B7F1628.6030205@gont.com.ar> <4B7F1888.5080907@isi.edu> <4B7F1B65.5080507@gont.com.ar>, <4B7F1D49.10804@isi.edu> <B01905DA0C7CDC478F42870679DF0F100797030A40@qtdenexmbm24.AD.QINTRA.COM>
In-Reply-To: <B01905DA0C7CDC478F42870679DF0F100797030A40@qtdenexmbm24.AD.QINTRA.COM>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig4D14845530A66147027B44BF"
X-MailScanner-ID: o1JNofOH023549
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:49:10 -0000


Smith, Donald wrote:
> Top posting, I too support this as an Informational RFC HOWEVER I would have rather supported it as a standard.
> So supporting this as an informational RFC does NOT mean Ran or anyone else would not have supported it as a standard which seems to be the conclusion Joe is making.

We would need to ask whether *each* of the changes proposed is something
we agree to be standard.

As I already noted, and Wes reiterated, there are other reasons for not
doing this in the context of this doc - esp. because some of these
changes really ought to be considered in the context of all transports,
not just TCP, where others are specific to TCP.

If we want to go back and split these out, that's a way forward.
However, publishing this as informational doesn't preclude that as a
separate path

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email