Re: [tcpm] poll for adopting draft-gont-tcp-security

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Joe Touch wrote:

>> So...if your opinion has now changed, and the only problem you have
>> with this I-D is the section on "ICMP processing", would you
>> support draft-gont-tcp-security (or at least not object its
>> adoption as a wg item) were I to, e.g., remove the section on ICMP
>> processing, replace it with a summary of what's in
>> draft-ietf-icmp-attacks, or e.g., note that the provided advice is
>> only for TCP implementations that desire good resiliency?
> 
> It may be useful to explain how to efficiently implement reordering
> and reassembly, but not in an RFC.

Is this a joke?

RFC 816: "MODULARITY AND EFFICIENCY IN PROTOCOL IMPLEMENTATION"
RFC 815: "IP DATAGRAM REASSEMBLY ALGORITHMS" (see Section 4)

and,

RFC 1936: "Implementing the Internet Checksum in Hardware" (of which you
are on of the co-authors)

You argue against an I-D that gives implementation advice, yet you have
co-authored such an I-D? Should we take your opinion seriously?

Do you do this intentionally so that we waste cycles in these pointless
discussions instead of getting work done?

Sorry, but I will not play your game anymore.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1