Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

"Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <Wesley.M.Eddy@nasa.gov> Tue, 30 September 2008 17:57 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 [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E554F3A6BBE; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:57:41 -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 4704F3A6BD8 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.25
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.349, 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 xJJDxpz03yGI for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ndjsnpf02.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsnpf02.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.1.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4607B3A6BBE for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ndjsppt02.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsppt02.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.1.101]) by ndjsnpf02.ndc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CDCDA8143; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:57:56 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ndjsxgw04.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsxgw04.ndc.nasa.gov [129.166.32.112]) by ndjsppt02.ndc.nasa.gov (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m8UHw1J8017125; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:58:01 -0500
Received: from NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov ([129.166.32.124]) by ndjsxgw04.ndc.nasa.gov with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:58:00 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:58:00 -0500
Message-ID: <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E5603CD@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5805DF4AE2@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
Thread-Index: AckjFO+lNnhV8IygRWO9tjxdRj/8mQAASsbwAAIBL4AAANa5QAAA1Gww
References: <200808140650.IAA05627@TR-Sys.de> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5805DF435A@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com><B35986E6-D8D7-4A9E-B8AB-3DB2E5C3FA29@nokia.com><48E110DE.8050903@isi.edu><724ED3DF-B4E5-4FF8-93BF-5B84688CC940@nokia.com><3B570CE3-309B-4473-9A19-99905A93986A@windriver.com> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5805DF4A3C@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E56038C@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5805DF4AE2@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <Wesley.M.Eddy@nasa.gov>
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>, "David Borman" <david.borman@windriver.com>, "Lars Eggert" <lars.eggert@nokia.com>, <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2008 17:58:00.0579 (UTC) FILETIME=[13DD9D30:01C92326]
Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Alfred_H=CEnes?= <ah@tr-sys.de>, "Mitesh Dalal \(mdalal\)" <mdalal@cisco.com>, randall@lakerest.net, ext Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) [mailto:ananth@cisco.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 1:47 PM
>To: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]; David Borman; Lars Eggert; 
>tcpm@ietf.org
>Cc: Alfred HÎnes; Mitesh Dalal (mdalal); randall@lakerest.net; 
>ext Joe Touch
>Subject: RE: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
>
>Wes, 
>
>> 
>> 
>> My personal opinion on the number of angels on the head of this
>> pin is that 3168 redefines bits that were formerly reserved.  Thus
>> it "updates" the description of those bits in 793 (they're no longer
>> reserved).  *Regardless* of the fact that 3168 is itself optional,
>> those bits are no longer available in the way 793 describes.  *That*
>> is why it has to "update" even though it's optional itself.
>> 
>> The tcpsecure document does not "update" in that sense, as it only
>> contains optional alternative state machine arcs; the arcs defined
>> in 793 are still able to be used in the way 793 describes ... they
>> aren't "updated", but there's now an alternative to them.
>
>Are you saying that we should construe that "alternate 
>processing" doesn't update the RFC?. Now, the update itself 
>can be optional. In other words, my point is that the current 
>meaning and usage of "updates" is to be used for any updates 
>to the RFC, irrespective of the fact it is minor, major or 
>optional. Agreed that, currently there is fine granularity in 
>describing an update i.e, "minor update, medium update or 
>conditinal update " etc., until such a granularity is 
>available, we should use the existing documented mechanisms. 
>This is the reason I think it would be expedient to seek the 
>advice of IESG in this matter.


My position is very simple:
What part of RFC 793 is no longer correct?  Which text is no
longer accurate in RFC 793?

With ECN, it's very clear, the answer is "the 2 reserved bits
are not reserved anymore".  With tcpsecure, the answer is also
very clear: "nothing".  You need to point to some part of 793
that is actually updated and not just alternatively defined,
IMO.  If 2581, 1323, and others don't update 793, then I don't
see how tcpsecure can have any valid claim to.

That's just my personal opinion, though.
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm