Re: [tcpm] Feedback request on draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security

"Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <> Tue, 02 March 2010 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A2983A8AAF; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:06:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p3fpst+sWhrm; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:06:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE513A84DB; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:06:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4336B2C8485; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:06:33 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o22G6VYa011228; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:06:33 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:04:57 -0600
From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <>
To: Lars Eggert <>, Fernando Gont <>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:04:56 -0600
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Feedback request on draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security
Thread-Index: Acq5t7w4SJIDeHByTzilqMOcgr270AAZp34w
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5, 1.2.40, 4.0.166 definitions=2010-03-02_12:2010-02-06, 2010-03-02, 2010-03-02 signatures=0
Cc: "" <>, " WG" <>, The, IESG <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback request on draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:06:34 -0000

My reading of the consensus, as a WG co-chair, was
100% consistent with what Lars has explained.  Since
the -00 and -01 WG versions of the document also
reflect that, I had thought the editor was on-board
with that plan to make progress.

Originally, in addition to support for the work, there
was caution raised that the prescribed behaviors be
each closely looked at.  Since the pre-WG document does
not identify individual recommendations nor is it
reasonable to expect the full content of a 136-page
document to be immediately vetted and sucked into the
WG product, the path of taking pieces of it to be
worked into the WG product is a logical and straight
forward way to arrive at a quality product with clear
support for the detailed content.

That said, if the WG wants to change its mind, that
is certainly an option for discussion, but it's not
productive at all to get into tangents with wild
accusations and suggestions that the WG be closed.

Wes Eddy
MTI Systems

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] On Behalf Of
>Lars Eggert
>Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:22 PM
>To: Fernando Gont
>Cc:; WG; The IESG
>Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback request on draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security
>On 2010-3-1, at 17:58, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> Lars Eggert wrote:
>>> More importantly, you claim that some group of people has "redefined"
>>> the WG consensus. This is a serious accusation against the chairs and
>>> me as AD. Please provide specific details or retract this accusation.
>> Lars,
>> I had made this comment a month ago or so, and at the time I preferred
>> not to answer you "provide details" request, in the hope of looking
>> forward.
>the exact phrasing in your earlier email was that I "seemed to ignore WG
>consensus". Alfred now says that I "redefined" WG consensus. Both are
>very serious accusations. I believe that I did not mishandle things here
>(see below for details), but I'm obviously biased. I encourage others to
>speak up.
>If you really believe I acted improperly, please start a recall
>petition. Otherwise, please stop accusing me of misconduct and
>apologize. This is the last email I'm going to send on this topic.
>> However, given that this has been raised again, I'll respond
>> this time:
>Thank you.
>> Earlier this year this working group was specifically polled about
>> adopting draft-gont-tcp-security as a WG item. The WG had
>> strong consensus in this respect (with people even offering to spend
>> cycles on document review), and this consensus was even noted in the
>> slides the wg chairs used in the TCPM meeting at IETF 75 (see:
>no disagreement so far - there was strong consensus to adopt a work item
>on describing a security assessment of various TCP aspects.
>> At the meeting, you (IIRC) raised the question about whether we wanted
>> to work on this document, or start with a new one (!).
>I don't think this is quit accurate. What happens when a WG takes on new
>work is that they decide to take on a work item, and then they decide
>which individual document (if any) can be adopted as the basis for
>progressing this work item forward.
>As I said, there was strong consensus to take on the work item. When we
>discussed whether the CNPI document was a good starting point, I wanted
>to make it clear that we'd be taking on a very substantial piece of text
>that had already been published.
>If I recall correctly, the WG did discuss for a while if there would be
>any argument for basically republishing the CNPI document through the
>IETF, and my take away from the discussion was that the WG felt that an
>IETF document in this space should say something more or differently
>than what the CNPI document had said.
>That's why we arrived at the decision to come to consensus on an new
>document structure first and then merge in content from the (long) CNPI
>document in a piecemeal fashion.
>> -- basically
>> throwing out of the window the 2-year effort of writing the CPNI TCP
>> security assessment on which draft-ietf-tcp-security is based.
>The CNPI document is published. Nothing the IETF can do invalidates the
>effort that went into it. Starting with a different outline (that's what
>the WG decided on) and merging in content from the CNPI document is not
>"throwing out the window" all that effort.
>> IMO, that's part of obstructing, and/or "not invented here" (NIH)
>But neither of the two (irrespective of whether they are true or not)
>are indicative of me ignoring WG consensus.
>The discussion of whether to adopt this specific draft as a basis for
>the work item (and in which form) was still in full swing on the list
>and during the meeting week. Sure, I spoke up during this discussion.
>But that's not ignoring WG consensus.
>> FWIW, It's interesting to note that IAB's Gregory Lebovitz was there
>> the TCPM meeting, and commented that "WGs don't need drafts to 100%
>> right to become WG items". (and, btw, only two or three people at that
>> meeting said that they had actually read the document.)
>It may be interesting to note, but it is unrelated to the accusation you
>> After the meeting, you argued (off-list) that wg consensus (allegedly
>> a result of IETF 75??!) was to submit a "fresh" (i.e., blank/brand-
>> document
>The WG consensus after IETF-75 *was* to start with a new document
>structure. That's why after IETF-75, you posted a revision that
>contained just the outline and we discussed it. See
> and
>> , when we already had consensus *before* the meeting, on the
>> *mailing-list* (as the IETF mandates it should be) for adopting
>> draft-gont-tcp-security.
>The discussion started in
>archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04641.html was still in full swing during
>IETF-75 - the chairs had not declared consensus. That happened at the
>end of IETF-75:
>> You even suggested that tcpm should assemble "a
>> team of editors"
>Yes, probably. As I said during the meeting, I believe that this would
>be the largest work item in TCPM in terms of effort, so strong support
>is required.
>> (when you should have probably made this observation
>> for the non-progressing tcp-ao, rather than for this newly adopted I-
>Irrelevant for the discussion at hand.
>> Last, but not least, anybody interested in the meeting I'm referring
>> are advised to listen to the meeting recordings, rather than reading
>> tcpm meeting minutes.
>What specifically in the audio recordings backs up your accusation that
>is not also in the minutes? You're making the accusation that I'm
>ignoring WG consensus, so it's on you to provide the data.
>To summarize (because below is about a different instance): I have seen
>no evidence that I mishandled anything in this case. But I'm obviously
>biased. I encourage others to speak up.
>> Another instance (but this one older, and in tsvwg):
>> I could also mention that when tsvwg was polled years ago (you were
>> co-chair of that wg at the time) about adopting
>> draft-larsen-port-randomization (now draft-ietf-port-randomization) as
>> wg item, at some point something like 5+ people were supporting the
>> adoption of the document as a tsvwg item (targeting *std* track)...
>> you mentioned that that didn't represent wg consensus.
>> Then the voice of three people (yours included) changed the target
>> Std track to BCP. (And no... I'm not arguing that std track was more
>> correct than bcp. I'm just arguing that the process, and your view of
>> "consensus", are not clear to me).
>If you want to make that accusation, please dig through the minutes to
>back this up with facts to make a case, instead of giving an anecdotal
>summary. I will point out that I acted as chair during the adoption of
>an individual document as a WG work item, and it is normal procedure to
>try and determine what the correct document type would be. The consensus
>is what concludes this process, and it is called by the chairs (three in
>this case).
>If you really believe I acted improperly, please start a recall
>petition. Otherwise, please stop accusing me of misconduct and
>apologize. This is the last email I'm going to send on this topic.