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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Joe Touch wrote:

>> Obviously, it would be entirely unreasonable for someone to argue against
>> this document's adoption as a WG item while simultaneously using this same
>> document as an example of acknowledgement of decided WG issues not written
>> anywhere else, for that would be... well, hypocrisy.
> 
> If this document contained only information of decided WG issues,
> including WG consensus on those issues, you would be correct. I have
> pointed out several cases where that is not the case - and that has been
> (and remains) my concern.

On April 13 
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04501.html) you 
said: "Implementation advice is outside the scope of the IETF. It's not 
even operational, IMO.". i.e., you argued that we should *dismiss* this 
I-D (draft-gont-tcp-security).

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?

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