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

Mark Allman <> Mon, 27 July 2020 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F673A0F15 for <>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a30sq5pXgvqy for <>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0459B3A183C for <>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x6so1791744qvr.8 for <>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version; bh=2GCOTwbypuhtsxEepSC0wmFUv9lD7Qsf/PKbaQ/WyTc=; b=ZH1aGMEI7sNe2vxHxFOKg8g5W+1uCXSEhBxOg5YWmrP1tU0htVpW9oUR5pDgm0b3c0 koxZh8mJWl2im0E0ielqsYLpBosIJ7wpcZtYe73E3MUhn1lRo9y1i9kjAaSCy+h3cZYp kX+l/neLMU+PBfo+01ujT2T6XTaYM0I0K+W/m4/1vuRSS8QkTfDF3CdwHlGmvP0smIFE 36J3n5yv6dN70Hdn7JPYZeMw1ijkMGBI1/hfcuySrEZEoXtTt3NtVn2pWzEOlZ6JLWzJ T/VHtudf9SsucO0p2g9HkFsyTNlr3MnEv+nE3hr1qPb4Nn+Dp20Ibktx5b9/szhHzDaf +w+g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version; bh=2GCOTwbypuhtsxEepSC0wmFUv9lD7Qsf/PKbaQ/WyTc=; b=tyooQxGyapM4IkvOa5TPzn1zHk6HfC35R5t6tmx7WUNItBfrZZ4bCgeEalwvcND4MZ xt2CvNvxV/rgL+8ci1Qdg0d0+FzeGnAszP8ak+s7s4Ncz4LFqBrxmpd3KDUtQBSWkfUD oRPtolURtDAsN82RoKEeOTV8t6PgL/HdQyt8PnOJjFvpTFmAYvvpo6/I9DiPZz2iT+V9 +pprLSPAhgezdLI/v3S1Fd6P2Ha244mZbtuMwOvOTA4/+es+JTz6h/Fs6kdrQ53BeylW mnnlew5sP205ikLu1Qt5xvhOalWG6zSwsjkEPLl0irWLq1t1ug/+iV6f0SJIRRslfqXP 6q+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532AeCXJMSCXUHrgTrnwVTOgMsFSPiOpcWGrvsBBoUZZ8KH0QKtw mmYwgmr69U0s8vp1zb8SWczcgA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxwX02Y20NDU4qA6LYPblHvVnuQB0uTO6p8gZuR6TR/XJGNoxMfxOyaRL09qwdgreynegkNXg==
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4a27:: with SMTP id n7mr16011132qvz.184.1595863284899; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id m63sm14698536qte.32.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mark Allman" <>
To: "Martin Duke" <>
Cc: "Benjamin Kaduk" <>, Extensions <>, "The IESG" <>,, tcpm-chairs <>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:21:22 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_6CE2EBF0-E068-4BD2-B9ED-09A19BDA74D7_="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:36:58 -0700
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:21:42 -0000

> 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.