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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 30 September 2008 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A8703A68C8; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
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 E6BA33A68C8 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 PnCZnk3Hd8vY for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130F63A6800 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.45] (pool-71-106-119-240.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.119.240]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8UM3Pgn002992 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48E2A22A.8000209@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:03:22 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <Wesley.M.Eddy@nasa.gov>
References: <200808140650.IAA05627@TR-Sys.de> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5805DF435A@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com><B35986E6-D8D7-4A9E-B8AB-3DB2E5C3FA29@nokia.com><48E110DE.8050903@isi.edu><724ED3DF-B4E5-4FF8-93BF-5B84688CC940@nokia.com><3B570CE3-309B-4473-9A19-99905A93986A@windriver.com> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5805DF4A3C@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E56038C@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5805DF4AE2@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E5603CD@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E5603CD@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?d_H=CEnes?= <ah@tr-sys.de>, tcpm@ietf.org, David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com>, randall@lakerest.net, "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alfre?=@core3.amsl.com, "Mitesh Dalal (mdalal)" <mdalal@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

-----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