Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

Ok, Wes and I count four opinions against and two opinions for having  
"Updates: 793" in the header of tcpsecure.  Unless other folks chime  
in, the resolution we see is:

1) "Updates: 793" is not put in the header of tcpsecure
2) When we send tcpsecure up to the IESG, we will note this issue and  
the discussion, and if the IESG feels that is appropriate to have  
"Updates: 793" in the header, then it can be added in.

We think everyone has been heard and understood, but don't see this  
conversation coming to full agreement.

			-David Borman & Wes Eddy, TCPM co-chairs

On Sep 30, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Joe Touch wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ] wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) [mailto:ananth@cisco.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 1:47 PM
>>> To: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]; David Borman; Lars Eggert;
>>> tcpm@ietf.org
>>> Cc: Alfred HÎnes; Mitesh Dalal (mdalal); randall@lakerest.net;
>>> ext Joe Touch
>>> Subject: RE: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
>>>
>>> Wes,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> My personal opinion on the number of angels on the head of this
>>>> pin is that 3168 redefines bits that were formerly reserved.  Thus
>>>> it "updates" the description of those bits in 793 (they're no  
>>>> longer
>>>> reserved).  *Regardless* of the fact that 3168 is itself optional,
>>>> those bits are no longer available in the way 793 describes.   
>>>> *That*
>>>> is why it has to "update" even though it's optional itself.
>>>>
>>>> The tcpsecure document does not "update" in that sense, as it only
>>>> contains optional alternative state machine arcs; the arcs defined
>>>> in 793 are still able to be used in the way 793 describes ... they
>>>> aren't "updated", but there's now an alternative to them.
>>> Are you saying that we should construe that "alternate
>>> processing" doesn't update the RFC?. Now, the update itself
>>> can be optional. In other words, my point is that the current
>>> meaning and usage of "updates" is to be used for any updates
>>> to the RFC, irrespective of the fact it is minor, major or
>>> optional. Agreed that, currently there is fine granularity in
>>> describing an update i.e, "minor update, medium update or
>>> conditinal update " etc., until such a granularity is
>>> available, we should use the existing documented mechanisms.
>>> This is the reason I think it would be expedient to seek the
>>> advice of IESG in this matter.
>>
>>
>> My position is very simple:
>> What part of RFC 793 is no longer correct?  Which text is no
>> longer accurate in RFC 793?
>>
>> With ECN, it's very clear, the answer is "the 2 reserved bits
>> are not reserved anymore".  With tcpsecure, the answer is also
>> very clear: "nothing".  You need to point to some part of 793
>> that is actually updated and not just alternatively defined,
>> IMO.  If 2581, 1323, and others don't update 793, then I don't
>> see how tcpsecure can have any valid claim to.
>>
>> That's just my personal opinion, though.
>
>
> This makes sense to me.
>
> Joe
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkjioioACgkQE5f5cImnZrvyfACgk+tXUy6Q1TdshUpvN9Zixv/i
> 2FEAoNoBwdYFzVM+r0wokwbAaJKLJ3PI
> =q5ru
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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