Re: [tcpm] [OPSEC] draft-gont-tcp-security

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hello, Joel,

Comments in-line...


> It's a tough question. In part I think the answer is up to you, I think
> there's some understanding on the part of tcpm that if this work were to
> progress on a standards track that tcpm (no opsec) is the place for that
> to happen.  

Ok. My proposal is, that unless there's any alternative proposal, I'd
like this document to be pursued as "Informational" within opsec.


> That said there's also some question as what sort of general
> recommendations about hardening tcp would actually be consider
> acceptable (in narrow use cases a lot more of them may well be).
> 
> 	The diligent blacksmith knows that hardening a tool also
> 	makes it more brittle...

This is a nice quote, but... I'd like examples. e.g., start discussing
about which specific hardening proposal makes TCP more brittle.


> The result of any such effort is likely to be greatly different than
> what you have today.

That's not a problem.



> An alternative track would have the document headed for informational
> status either as a working group document or as indivdual submission
> with an understanding of what sort of advice is provided and who should
> consider it and the limitations of implmentation based on it's
> recomendations. It still think exposure to a working group is very
> important and useful in this context, 


Ok. Good. As I mentioned, unless somebody else comes up with an
alternative proposal, I'd like the document to target "Informational" at
opsec. I guess that at some point tcpm may want to work on some of the
stuff in the document on a piecemeal basis.



> as a purely independant submission
> it's simply documentary evidence of the uk cpni's effort's at
> documenting some percieved flaws in tcp and recomned mitigation strategy
> which is useful but not dramatically better than putting it on a website.

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