Re: [tcpm] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Mark Allman <[e-mail]>]

> Benjamin and I discussed this briefly in the telechat. I would summarize as
> follows:
>
> - We seem to have clear agreement on all but the first DISCUSS point
> - We should probably say something about the security implications of
> spoofed acks but not be too specific. The document doesn't really have a
> section (that I can find right now) that discusses the properties of ACKs,
> so perhaps the best place to put this is in security considerations.
> Something to the effect of

Thanks for all the comments, folks.  I just posted -17.  Several
things ...

  - First, on the main point of Ben's DISCUSS, I added some
    non-normative words to requirement 2a in section 4 to encourage
    the use of ACKs that cannot be readily spoofed.  I ran the text
    by Martin & Ben last week and while I don't want to speak for
    them, both seemed satisfied.  (Ben- The words submitted are
    further honed based on your note.)

  - I take the COMMENTS as suggestions.  The typos and small errors
    were all fixed.  For the larger comments I tried to clarify
    where these indicated that was needed.  But, I didn't change
    something for every comment.  And, I especially didn't try to
    figure out / address the more nebulous comments.

  - I can enumerate the changes based on the COMMENTS, if that's
    useful.  However, my understanding of COMMENTS is that they're
    suggestions and as such I'd much rather just refer you to the
    diffs if you are interested in some specific comment.

Please yell if I missed something.

Thanks,
allman