IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors

"touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 12 October 2021 03:38 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 960213A0CBA; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 20:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 323o9ccS94-i; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 20:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-5.web-hosting.com (server217-5.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.226]) (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 C66A83A0CB8; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 20:38:38 -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=m74dl31oyz/nNF7JDIyG/zh7guHeYh/SKvwUt+VPu4Q=; b=EAAhktWNQ8qGbkOlKXmvqeHj3J jEaCTpzvXFLpy4LrM6ouV6antb7StC455bCzQLj8KCl9sogvftAib4BxDZLG1Cjb1qTPg+33kFr8l t1UUg1XP+cbHdLFjlPe2nIBG+0AS6LkSGUhjFWfCnWSkmBAZhrU6GRWufeLjemwtMbGDjM0vqjXI6 IaymvLONjMQ8rpnRKlKJX6yfzZskaMQYMcsrJGoisim2BG5KFaZY54tkEWjLMm31f7d/QO+W6TVFJ FbSOUeZptDf0rXV3mwYz1iQjE3xcjdQQYCliz61EEFLq0HEg1V8Phd+RPs7omxSmXBRKq/A1W2uNB 5HImO6yw==;
Received: from cpe-172-114-237-88.socal.res.rr.com ([172.114.237.88]:54142 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 1ma8ca-00AsxK-85; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 23:38:37 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_78E5D6A9-CFB9-4518-80D0-742209CCBEA9"
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: <CEBDB347-DE84-4525-804A-83BFD37A8749@strayalpha.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 20:38:29 -0700
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <EB68AFC5-621A-4EDF-9354-67B4B551EADC@strayalpha.com>
References: <60c26250abb14655b192083b00f3cd14@hs-esslingen.de> <CEBDB347-DE84-4525-804A-83BFD37A8749@strayalpha.com>
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
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/S3ixqgexOGVlTCm4PtI-se3IWKE>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors
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: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 03:38:46 -0000

—
Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

> On Oct 11, 2021, at 3:15 PM, touch@strayalpha.com wrote:
> 
>> I find the term "NAT traversal" confusing in this context. As outlined in 
>> Section 9.2 of RFC 5925, "TCP-AO cannot interoperate natively across NAT/NAPT 
>> (Network Address Port Translation) devices, which modify the IP addresses 
>> and/or port numbers." The term "middlebox" used in Section 9.1 of RFC 5925 may 
>> be a better choice.
> 
> It should cite rfc6978 for the latter, and NAT is the term used there because this isn’t a generic middlebox issue.

Correction: there are two different features and they are ambiguously indicated.

The abstract should refer to middle box traversal (removing TCP options from coverage); the intro later describes NAT traversal, which omits the port numbers. The two are distinct and this has been clarified in the new text.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email