Re: [tcpm] comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-05

Fernando Gont <> Mon, 15 June 2009 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5843A6985 for <>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zd+B5K2auGno for <>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D053A6A5D for <>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk36 with SMTP id 36so9866qyk.29 for <>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=okxGKqbUU5h3ialLdwu6HOGgVVjQ+yr+7Mm7BD75Qvs=; b=UpVo1tYs2bf0kp10b5QTvriNe/EVF6PIQWHOUe2HdalqbCCHXCTAEdpP3xraylvIET oX/9L7YPV2nrMrW49DIh6O43WrAKlV3GIM5mXGvGcA2UzIw9HsaeHQNfSbE9Jok1cVP0 wC7w17u9+P5K/QOJOnY8QiPGr7frgUCL6pbwg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; 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=x3EKtE/tq3/71lWuua8/gc9xI6Jo4bcta5cy7uxIcY/BF44MzXD/3uqm2FuwuLHB7w CZiqasIT0vLM8gf/LTAc/VnkDAtcYzS3Trz+5838Fg1zgBYk6UHlxl7LXcLVhGIlycrG e6h93+qsEfU6JN9hqEaLCwnGXWPVzTIEicVlg=
Received: by with SMTP id u10mr6750469qad.83.1245032644586; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ? ( []) by with ESMTPS id 26sm204114qwa.44.2009. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:23:56 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>, Fernando Gont <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:23:57 -0000

Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon] wrote:

> As both co-chair and TCPM participant, I'm not really
> comfortable with Appendix B of this document which
> reads a lot like an advertisement.  Even though I
> know it's well-intentioned, it seems like we'd set
> a bad precedent if we got into the habit of putting
> sponsor-plugs into the appendices of our documents.
> I don't think we lose anything by leaving that
> appendix out completely.

Let me clarify this one a little bit: When I included this appendix, I
was not working for UK CPNI (formerly NISCC), and there were no plans of
doing so.

However, NISCC was carrying out the vendor coordination process wrt the
ICMP vulnerabilities. For instance, NISCC ended up publishing a
vulnerability advisory stating the vulnerability status of each of the
different vendors.

That was the reason for including that paragraph. -- as I mentioned,
neither NISCC nor CPNI sponsored any of my work on the ICMP attacks
draft (for instance, my affiliation for this I-D is with UTN/FRH, not
with CPNI).

That said, I have no problem with removing this appendix, and adding a
corresponding ack in the "Acknowledgements" section (i.e., different and
shorter text) to NISCC/CPNI for the vendor coordination process they
carried out.

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