Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Fernando Gont wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>>>> The text in AO was unchanged since the -00 version (Nov 2007). You
>>>> waited until after last call to complain about adding specific calls for
>>>> ICMP actions. 
>>> Look at this:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04593.html
>>>
>>> Is June 16th, 2009 what you call last-minute???????
>> It was raised as you cite, discussed at the WG meeting in Stockholm, and
>> we proceeding with the result from that meeting (see slide 8). 
> 
> We proceeded with the result of that meeting?

OK. Let me be *very* specific.

The issue was discussed on the list - see my summary of the debate we
had and a call for additional input:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04604.html

Nobody else weighed in. At that point TCP-AO had the same recommendation
as IPsec (standards-track), and did not include specific indications (as
per your informational-track doc).

I asked for input at the WG meeting in Stockholm, and the notes indicate:

  - Issues raised – ICMP handling
    o No need to do more than IPsec

I raised the issue, and we did not have any additional concerns raised
at the meeting. We did not make a new decision on this at the meeting.

Joe