IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Wed, 09 June 2010 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ananth@cisco.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 C75D128C119 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.207, BAYES_40=-0.185, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 YUm-r6Ey4sJf for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76E728C10E for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAKp0D0yrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACeUHGlNZoWhRgEg0k
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,393,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="141840317"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jun 2010 18:07:01 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o59I71hj017398; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 18:07:01 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:07:01 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:07:00 -0700
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5809E5C397@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100609173556.GA5338@nuttenaction>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
Thread-Index: AcsH+kNJs30OOH2cRXuS0AecodzrewAAJlFA
References: <20100609151532.8E75E28C0D0@core3.amsl.com><33D3BDE9-7E8D-4DF0-B8D5-BFFC66CF9C99@nokia.com> <20100609173556.GA5338@nuttenaction>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@jauu.net>, Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jun 2010 18:07:01.0349 (UTC) FILETIME=[8F105150:01CB07FE]
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
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: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:07:06 -0000

+1

FWIW, there is a recent proposal which talks about enhancing TCP
checksums as well :-

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-anumita-tcpm-stronger-checksum/

The above proposal tries to leverage on the TCP alternate checksum
option. My thinking it may be useful to have a "TCP generalized checksum
option" which can give the flexibility for a TCP stack to choose from a
set of checksum algorithms (of course the default stays what it is today
;-) 

-Anantha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Hagen Paul Pfeifer
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:36 AM
> To: Lars Eggert
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org Extensions
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
> 
> * Lars Eggert | 2010-06-09 19:28:14 [+0300]:
> 
> >Quite possibly the most boring RFC ever. But at least it's short. 
> >Comments welcome.
> 
> Lars, I thought about RFC 1145 "TCP Alternate Checksum 
> Options", there are no real shortcomings in the RFC. It is 
> not _widely_ deployed but there is no real security concern 
> like say T/TCP.
> 
> I thought only superseded or defective RFCs can be declared 
> historic? I mean TCP Alternate Checksum Options _can 
> eventually_ useful in the future for example Interplanetary 
> TCP. Maybe some military sites already employ RFC 1145.
> 
> HGN
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email