[tcpm] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Warren Kumari via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 22 September 2021 22:52 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis@ietf.org, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org, tcpm@ietf.org, Michael Scharf <michael.scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, michael.scharf@hs-esslingen.de, sbanks@encrypted.net, opsdir@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Message-ID: <163235116750.21764.13975019865972825404@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 15:52:48 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/YqyGgi3lRt9DzezWfgD68rdFsr4>
Subject: [tcpm] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-25: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[ "Then I said unto you, Dread not, neither be afraid of of this DISCUSS, for
it be easy to address" ]

I'm raising one of Erik's comments to a DISCUSS, because I think that it is
important enough that it needs addressing:
----
[S3.9.2.1]

* I feel like there should be some additional caveat about security
  implications of support for source routing.  RFC 6274, for example, says
  packets with LSRR (6274s3.13.2.3) and SSRR (6274s3.13.2.4) options should
  be dropped, citing various security concerns.

  I'm not sure there needs to be a lot of text; perhaps just an observation
  that some end systems may not support the source route semantics described
  here for security (or policy) reasons?
----

I realize that this document isn't intended to be a summary of all RFCs which
mention anything related to TCP, but this particular point seems like it could
do with an extra bit of reinforcement.

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a
DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion; I really think that the
document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you very much to the authors and WG for writing this -- it's an important
piece of work, and seems like it was probably also a large amount of work.
Thanks!

Also, thanks to Sarah Banks for the OpsDir review - it was helpful.
Oh, and thanks to Erik, whose text I stole :-)

[tcpm] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpm… Warren Kumari via Datatracker