Re: [tcpm] A question on tcpsecure & meeting minutes

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <> Fri, 04 April 2008 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC3873A6AB1; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2A63A69A1 for <>; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h7P-1nHJUBi4 for <>; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2E743A68A7 for <>; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 04 Apr 2008 08:43:45 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m34Fhhbw004098; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:43:43 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m34FhhYH020232; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 15:43:43 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:43:22 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:42:51 -0700
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] A question on tcpsecure & meeting minutes
Thread-Index: AciWTW9ZsXCMHPgTRwOfN1syFhj0egAE57VQ
References: <> <>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <>
To:, Fernando Gont <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Apr 2008 15:43:22.0121 (UTC) FILETIME=[9CC97F90:01C8966A]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2219; t=1207323823; x=1208187823; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;;; z=From:=20=22Anantha=20Ramaiah=20(ananth)=22=20<ananth@cisco .com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[tcpm]=20A=20question=20on=20tcpsecure= 20&=20meeting=20minutes |Sender:=20; bh=7HYv5TjA2x/7HgHisw/37LaekJ0AxrdprlUn0Wt3vu4=; b=b40vUBV8k8OnXfW2mF7kSH5h8NLfhbZ75YpkDWo/yUUQeM96sXVVWm4R6Z 7XDQ7hsoToz+IHUPRM38ON7113VIXA1Rsua9ag5rZ67yRgubptpUWIgsrUjD 7aza+cDrue;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3;; dkim=pass ( sig from verified; );
Subject: Re: [tcpm] A question on tcpsecure & meeting minutes
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    I will go ahead and change the document to reflect the
recommendation levels suggested and also would incorporate the
applicable comments received.  

However, there is one item (which I have brought up earlier) which needs
some help to be resolved. We need to mention in the document, the
reasoning for the chosen levels for each mechanism, currently it is not
clear and it makes the document incomplete.

for eg, in particular:- some of the reasons why data mitigation was
singled out and classified under MAY is because 

"it needs extra variables to implement this and it is not as simple as
the other 2 mechanisms" 
"even with AS in place data mitigation is a MAY because originally it
was "decided" to tag it as MAY.

I am not sure we can put such a verbiage (like the one listed above) in
the document.  My suggestion is something like "it was felt that the
data mitigation is a MAY beause it is harder to tear down the connection
compared to the other 2 mechanisms OR in other words additional
complexity and conditions required to cause harm when compared to the
other two"  

I am open to suggestions. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On 
> Behalf Of Mark Allman
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 5:12 AM
> To: Fernando Gont
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] A question on tcpsecure & meeting minutes
> > I have just read the minutes from the last IETF meeting, 
> and it says 
> > tcpsecure has been through WGLC.
> That is because that is what I said. :-)
> However, you're right that I mis-spoke.  With all the drafts 
> we have in various stages I just botched this.  
> The status is ...
>   + We have nailed down the recommendation levels for the various
>     mechanisms.
>   + Those levels need worked into the document.
>   + Then it seems that all outstanding issues have been taken care of
>     and we can do WGLC.
> So, in other words it seems "WGLC is imminent" is the better summary.
> Thanks for catching this bit of confusion.
> allman
tcpm mailing list