Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?

David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com> Tue, 25 September 2007 12:55 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ia9wo-0000IW-Ji; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:55:30 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ia9wm-0000Ge-W7 for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:55:28 -0400
Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11] helo=mail.wrs.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ia9wg-0004Yu-Mj for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:55:28 -0400
Received: from ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-mail03 [147.11.57.144]) by mail.wrs.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l8PCsxls026301; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com ([147.11.57.147]) by ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:54:59 -0700
Received: from [192.168.117.73] ([192.168.117.73]) by ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:54:58 -0700
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709250900420.1575@netcore.fi>
References: <20070924174444.F2C662A7182@lawyers.icir.org> <200709250229.l8P2TLfI029744@venus.xmundo.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709250900420.1575@netcore.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <299A2E1C-3704-4F76-B8A3-A3A2C98BA28E@windriver.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:54:56 -0500
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Sep 2007 12:54:59.0058 (UTC) FILETIME=[47946D20:01C7FF73]
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, mallman@icir.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

I voted (3) at the meeting.  My vote is with the understanding that  
the whole tcpsecure document is *not* becoming part of the base TCP  
specification, but is an optional addition that implementors may  
choose whether or not to implement.  If they do choose to implement  
it, then within that context my vote is for two SHOULDs and a MAY.

If my understanding is incorrect, and we are voting on SHOULD/MAY for  
making these part of the base TCP specification, then I would change  
my vote to (2) all MAYs.
			-David Borman

On Sep 25, 2007, at 1:07 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> At 02:44 p.m. 24/09/2007, Mark Allman wrote:
>>> In the meeting in Chicago we took a "visual hum" and the tally looks
>>> like this:
>>>
>>>        all SHOULDs: 4
>>>        all MAYs: 3
>>>        two SHOULDs and a MAY: 8
>>> So, our inclination is to go with option (3) from my list above.   
>>> If you
>>> think this is the wrong way to go please yell---especially if you  
>>> are
>>> not reflected in the 15 folks who took part in the visual hum.
>>
>> My inclination is for option (2) (all MAYs).
>>
>> FWIW, I did not attend the last IETF.
>
> Likewise.
>
> As a note, I do not see this as a comment on the technology or the  
> modifications.  What I don't like is the concept that new TCP  
> standards track documents would define what all TCP implementations  
> implement.  Instead they should just define how to implement a  
> particular modification if a vendor chooses to do so.  If we need  
> to mandate what vendors must implement in order to claim compliance  
> with 'TCP', we need to update RFC 1122 or write a normative version  
> of the TCP roadmap document.
>
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm


_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm