Re: [tcpm] Some comments on tcpsecure

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Sun, 06 April 2008 02:34 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 core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899C43A68CF; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 19:34:13 -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 672F63A686B for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 19:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 B+XOha++XhKC for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 19:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25E03A68CF for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 19:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2008 19:34:20 -0700
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m362YKQb026871; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 19:34:20 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m362YKQe004182; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 02:34:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 5 Apr 2008 19:34:20 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:33:48 -0700
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5804FA108B@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <47F82129.2000603@isi.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Some comments on tcpsecure
Thread-Index: AciXgfxnoMwiTq4DR+KE1fvEqqV9NgAB+zeQ
References: <200804041832.m34IWTC5025090@venus.xmundo.net><47F68794.6050100@isi.edu><200804042012.m34KCk8U022643@venus.xmundo.net><47F68DC7.2050303@isi.edu><200804050557.m355vAjU013266@venus.xmundo.net><47F7B43E.6010004@isi.edu><200804052024.m35KOlmj018418@venus.xmundo.net><47F7E2D0.8010802@isi.edu><200804052353.m35NrdO1031661@venus.xmundo.net> <47F82129.2000603@isi.edu>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2008 02:34:20.0276 (UTC) FILETIME=[B7ACBB40:01C8978E]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1616; t=1207449260; x=1208313260; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ananth@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Anantha=20Ramaiah=20(ananth)=22=20<ananth@cisco .com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[tcpm]=20Some=20comments=20on=20tcpsecu re |Sender:=20; bh=/0FjJvm8CXwfttTb/dphSRL5v/RDbsCN5MpAjKqfgOU=; b=uhNV1GbXv87E6YCzRB8lUOxAwohLlCvfVkc95CUSkU1MBP/m63V+1WWIl5 v6DjMAWCIAEHR2uzGGUJXPPw2eg0rumlfCCSbtNrHkir2dDIUFoa/dYuIFgq 1OzT6wepxU;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Some comments on tcpsecure
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-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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

 

> > 
> > What "everyone implements" isn't the issue? ahem... "rough 
> consensus 
> > and running code".
> 
> It's rough consensus AND running code. Not 'running code 
> trumps everything'.
> 
> > There's no code that runs what you're describing, Joe. Everybody is 
> > doing what is described in the ICMP attacks draft.
> 
> Popular vote does not determine correctness. Part of the 
> problem is that there are some people who've deployed 
> prototype code and convinced everyone it's appropriate. That 
> is NOT how protocol specifications are determined.
> 
> We've had this debate before. If there's nothing new to add, 
> let's let others chime in.

I'll chime in, my few cents follows :

Protocol specifications do evolve from time to time. For example, if
most of the devices which is running in the internet is already
implementing what is being proposed for quite sometime, the proof is in
the pudding. In such cases it CAN be considered for standardization and
also this (ICMP attacks) is already a WG document and I think making
forward progress is important here. So what is being said above comes
across as totally out of place given the current context. Well, there
are tons of examples where "prototype" code has become a standard,
should I start giving examples, I won't since everyone who has been
around knows this is a fact and I am in no mood to spend my energy in
debating something so obvious. May be someone's definition of prototype
code isn't the same as mine, then that is a different discussion
altogether ;-)

-Anantha

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm