[tcpm] Fwd: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Thu, 02 October 2008 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [] (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 382953A685B; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 06:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C47B3A659B; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 06:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w+iFrioSDSaz; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:2060:40:1::123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2BF3A6784; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 06:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:2060:40:2:219:e3ff:fe06:dc74] ([IPv6:2001:2060:40:2:219:e3ff:fe06:dc74]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.fit.nokia.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m92Dt5u8011586 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 16:55:06 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from lars.eggert@nokia.com)
Message-Id: <1ABB0C9F-EAF3-445D-B8E1-58110496291C@nokia.com>
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
To: TSV Area <tsv-area@ietf.org>, tcpm Extensions WG <tcpm@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:55:05 +0300
References: <20081002093129.5bb80658@cs.columbia.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94/8371/Thu Oct 2 13:15:33 2008 on fit.nokia.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (mail.fit.nokia.com [IPv6:2001:2060:40:1::123]); Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:55:10 +0300 (EEST)
Subject: [tcpm] Fwd: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1117787055=="
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

FYI, this discussion on the main IETF list needs input from transport  
folks. Look at Section 7.3 of draft-stjohns-sipso-05.


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "ext Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
> Date: October 2, 2008 16:31:29 GMT+03:00
> To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
> Cc: draft-stjohns-sipso-05@tools.ietf.org, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu 
> >, secdir@mit.edu, ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 22:12:17 -0400
> "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>>>    Steven> Note 7.3.1 on
>>>    Steven> TCP considerations.  (Also note that 7.3.1 disagrees
>>>    Steven> with 793 on the treatment of security labels in section
>>>    Steven> 3.6 of 793.  At the least, this shoudl be noted.
>>> I had completely missed this.  I'll call out the section to the
>>> transport ADs
>> I should have added: I think the new document is in fact more correct
>> than 793 -- the 793 scheme would permit various forms of
>> high-bandwidth covert channels to be set up.  This is an issue that
>> was not nearly that well understood when 793 was written.  That said,
>> it is a change to TCP, and needs to be treated as such.
> Thinking further -- I suspect that the right thing to do here is for
> someone to write a short, simple draft amending 793 -- it's handling  
> of
> the security option is simply wrong, independent of this draft.  I
> wonder -- what TCPs actually implement even 793?  NetBSD doesn't; I
> strongly suspect that no BSDs do.  Does Solaris?  Linux?
> 		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

tcpm mailing list