IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] [OPSEC] draft-gont-tcp-security

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Tue, 14 April 2009 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
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 8D93128C20E; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 l6NbMTWe0e8n; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ag-out-0708.google.com (ag-out-0708.google.com [72.14.246.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E78E28C20F; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ag-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 23so1264150agd.12 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rVFU2xr2gLNcl2gqS0LzqIh7K8bb/pdodTsPZOr5SEI=; b=mH2q+Y8q5ugZLSo6BzKHZewGZICWKcJ8dSTfPUPnL7J92xhsSkLccQzsQXldVLmdXM bAJt+y2qMr740wcqDCJ5sWmobSx8YnGXrqEXPKU6/Mm9P7o86BNmwWR5xwN7xrArWH25 HrcTyaWnVLjPv2z9zsTnFrkFTr1rymSMAZGb4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=LP4Bdea5rmw+1Ne2gmCDzn9/+ycokHKL/BPnyX3XD/BQ2lQlefgl111B8fE0NJYTgR xl/I5WeSiP1A/FTEPI+FJArBUD7+MCY4mdzn8j2C8uhtPWjoqFVSCnvHQTGwOOZw5K5J wqjA6RxMrt0FFqTfTNZ5gC9hZfdTnNyLSb8IA=
Received: by 10.90.88.16 with SMTP id l16mr10101126agb.112.1239734163524; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?172.16.1.133? (host101.190-139-184.telecom.net.ar [190.139.184.101]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6sm264661agb.10.2009.04.14.11.36.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Fernando Gont <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49E4D78D.20004@gont.com.ar>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:35:57 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
References: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB221318F5E8@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.g ov><49E36AB9.40507@isi.edu> <49E384E9.1050106@gont.com.ar><49E3878C.9080200@isi.edu> <49E39119.1060902@gont.com.ar> <B01905DA0C7CDC478F42870679DF0F1004BC4176D0@qtdenexmbm24.AD.QINTRA.COM> <49E3A88F.9060301@gont.com.ar> <49E3ABC0.1050601@isi.edu> <49E3B9BF.1060901@gont.com.ar> <49E3BED9.1030701@isi.edu> <C9E987CC-0213-4C67-BA0A-11C736772EE7@nokia.com> <49E4A45B.4040402@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <49E4A45B.4040402@bogus.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 'Joe Abley' <jabley@ca.afilias.info>, "'opsec@ietf.org'" <opsec@ietf.org>, "'tcpm@ietf.org'" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [OPSEC] draft-gont-tcp-security
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:34:54 -0000

Hello, Joel,

> I do belive that implementation advice is in scope for the ietf.
> 
> We should plow operational experience with our protocol stack and it's
> limitations back into the standards process,
> 
> We should avoid producing advice on general cases that would result in
> protocols becoming more rather than less brittle except when absolutely
> necessary.
> 
> We should be mindful that existing deployed implementations are unlikely
> to change based solely on recommendations.

Do you have a possible action plan to pursue this effort?

Thanks!

Kind regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email