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

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Thu, 03 September 2009 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21523A6981 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G-amr6piPm6I for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (mail.fit.nokia.com [195.148.124.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCEE83A67A1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:14b8:18f::225:ff:fe45:eccf] ([IPv6:2001:14b8:18f:0:225:ff:fe45:eccf]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.fit.nokia.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n83NUWv0081011 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 4 Sep 2009 02:30:32 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from lars.eggert@nokia.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1075.2)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-3-983003904; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A9FFF8C.7040001@gont.com.ar>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 02:30:27 +0300
Message-Id: <E25D669B-F0B2-4AED-B8B3-81E39FB2FEE5@nokia.com>
References: <200908262238.AAA06336@TR-Sys.de><4A9624CB.6040203@isi.edu> <4A9894C3.4020300@gont.com.ar><4A9AB5C2.4090209@isi.edu> <4A9CB254.7050802@gont.com.ar> <AEDCAF87EEC94F49BA92EBDD49854CC70CDCE9FF@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <4A9FFF8C.7040001@gont.com.ar>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1075.2)
Cc: "ah@tr-sys.de" <ah@tr-sys.de>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "touch@ISI.EDU" <touch@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on the outline of the document
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:31:51 -0000

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.

Lars