IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] ICMP attacks draft (issue 1): hard errors -> soft errors (in synchronized states)

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Thu, 29 September 2005 16:13 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EL12h-0003qE-65; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:13:55 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EL12e-0003mP-NQ for tcpm@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:13:52 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20668 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:13:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EL1AK-0006Lr-9p for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:21:49 -0400
Received: from [128.30.5.112] (30-5-112.wireless.csail.mit.edu [128.30.5.112]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j8TGCXY08659; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <433C126F.5010400@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:12:31 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] ICMP attacks draft (issue 1): hard errors -> soft errors (in synchronized states)
References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050923075214.0428faa8@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <433411E2.3020005@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050923125332.04320008@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <4334345F.2060301@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050927013116.03fedc70@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <4339AB09.70501@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050928034642.08012bf0@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <433BDFB8.4090407@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050929120406.03d79008@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <433C0C47.3080207@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050929125335.03d67e90@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050929125335.03d67e90@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465
Cc: tcpm@ietf.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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0735114449=="
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org


Fernando Gont wrote:
> At 12:46 p.m. 29/09/2005, Joe Touch wrote:
...
>> That presumes I think that there is a viable way to secure ICMP, which I
>> don't so far.
> 
> No. That means you are making an argument for a protocol which is
> already unreliable.

Yes, I am. Or have you disabled all non-IPsec'd connections to your site?

...
>> > Me, a number of people here, the industry, and the IAB seem to have a
>> > different view on this draft. I respect yours, anyway.
>>
>> Well, FWIW, the IAB/IESG also approved a number of drafts to go to RFC
>> standards-track that violate RFC791 on the use of IP ID (ROHC), and a
>> recent one we discussed in this group that depended normatively on a
>> mechanism that was an ID. I.e., they make mistakes too (as do we all).
> 
> That's more of an administrative/procedural than a technical error. Was
> their technical rationale broken?

No technical rational for overriding spec or process was given in either
case. They appear to have just slipped through - i.e., an error.

Joe

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email