Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on the outline of the document

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Thu, 03 September 2009 23:43 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 959F33A6853 for <>; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WeIw7Fp8+S-1 for <>; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480B33A686A for <>; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n83Ng6Yf017350 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:42:06 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lars Eggert <>
References: <><> <><> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, Fernando Gont <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on the outline of the document
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:43:18 -0000

Hash: SHA1

Lars Eggert wrote:
> On 2009-9-3, at 20:40, Fernando Gont wrote:
> So if this is entirely aimed at implementers shouldn't that be
>>> explicitly stated in the title? I appreciate that in theory BCP is meant
>>> to imply implementation guidance but this might be more appropriately
>>> titled something like "Implementers guidelines for mitigating TCP
>>> security threats" or "Guidance on secure implementation of TCP"
>> Point taken. How about "Guidance on secure implementation of the
>> Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)"?
> Personally, I'd avoid the word "secured" in the title and maybe in other
> places in the document. Maybe use "hardened" or "robust" or
> "attack-resistant" or something, but "secure" isn't quite accurate

Guidance to Mitigate TCP Implementation-Based Vulnerabilities

This makes more sense to me if this is indeed focused on
implementation-based vulnerabilities, rather than general security threats

If this is all the ways an implementer can avoid security threats in
general, then I reiterate my suggestion that we need a security
vulnerabilities doc.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -