Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments.
Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Thu, 07 August 2008 18:27 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 E0E7C28C1B7; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:27:32 -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 D43343A6899 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:27:31 -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 RJUCZGLCnhcn for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211D33A69D4 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.101] (auto-66.185.38.62.wirelessworld.vi [66.185.38.62]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m77IRghM018398 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <489B3E76.7090808@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:27:02 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chandrashekhar Appanna <achandra@cisco.com>
References: <48971214.6070303@isi.edu> <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E324E65@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov> <20080804184552.GG29466@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080804184552.GG29466@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments.
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chandrashekhar Appanna wrote: Just to clear up a potential point of confusion ... |> I think that "obsoletes" is correct. | | Not sure if this will obselete that.. this is a new option with different | goals AFAICT, this option has the same fundamental goal - transport layer protection of the transport protocol. TCP-AO has additional requirements that exceed TCP MD5, primarily (and arguably solely) to address inadequacies in TCP MD5. | and we are not even sure if at this point how much consensus there | is about moving AO forward.. there is much discussion on the keying aspects, | the design team seems to be just one person speaking up mostly; and | given the comments from other design team members at the mike at the ietf | I would not be in favour of making AO obselete the other method.. like you | say the status of the document has no power and therefore it is better | to not think it has some if it does not line up ;).. forcing a document | through without the implied working code and rough consensus may end up | doing more harm to the doc itself.. TCP MD5 uses a faulty hash and does not protect against replay attacks. IMO it is sufficiently faulty that it ought to be deprecated regardless of the state of a replacement. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkibPnYACgkQE5f5cImnZruHZQCg+RfoVQoJAiSmBOf475NN+dyA xgYAnjYGIIy1hXbwQM4k5hmKMPkDKV7B =GD9m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Joe Touch
- [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Adam Langley
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Chandrashekhar Appanna
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Lars Eggert
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Caitlin Bestler
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Eric Rescorla
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Ron Bonica
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Stefanos Harhalakis
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Stefanos Harhalakis
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments. Stefanos Harhalakis