Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Mitesh Dalal (mdalal) wrote:
> FWIW, I think we need to address the fundamentals first, as echoed by
> Lars, Tim and your truly
> some time back. i.e. are we labeling this changes as updates to rfc793 ?
> Will we clearly state
> (if the document proceeds to  standards track) to state "Updates: 793"
> in the title of the document ?
> OR
> 
> are we looking it as an additional protocol that can be added/embedded
> to TCP (although there is no handshake to signal this understanding
> between the TCP peers to distinctly picture this as an option,
> but a small protocol nevertheless) and does not necessarily update the
> base spec ? 

Whether this is a small change or not is irrelevant to whether it
updates TCP's rules for handling segments. All modifications to TCP
segment processing events update 793 - whether they are standards track
or experimental.

An "additional protocol" could not change any TCP headers, TCP endpoint
state, *or* TCP segment handling events.

I remain confused at this sort of question coming up at all. If this is
not a change to TCP, at the very least it is being discussed in the
wrong working group.

Joe

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Allman [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 5:24 PM
>> To: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend? 
>>
>>
>>> In the last meeting in Chicago, it was pointed out the only pending 
>>> issue is the "strength of the mitigations". 3 choices were listed, 
>>> people picked the choices ( Careful not to use the "vote" since you 
>>> don't seem to like it :-), So I would think the next step 
>> is to pick 
>>> on whichever choice comes up as popular and move on. I for 
>> one don't 
>>> see anything wrong with that approach.
>>>
>>> Atleast I am missing as to what would constitute a "rough 
>> consensus" ?
>>
>> First, it isn't me that doesn't like the word "vote".  It is 
>> the IETF that doesn't take "votes".  Taking "votes" is 
>> problematic.  Take a look at some of the IETF process 
>> documents, the Tao of the IETF, etc.  These explain why there 
>> are not votes within the IETF and the rationale behind the 
>> consensus process.
>>
>> It seems to me that in this case it is clear that the WG is 
>> not generally of one mind (i.e., come to consensus), with a 
>> non-trivial number of folks wanting MAYs, SHOULDs and and/or 
>> some combination (via picking some MAYs and some SHOULDs or 
>> using conditionals or whatever).
>> If you can show us that we're reading this wrong and that in 
>> fact these folks are outliers then please do.
>>
>> allman
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm