IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] feedcback on tcp-secure-05

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Thu, 13 July 2006 17:54 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G15OB-0007sJ-2Y; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:54:15 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G15O9-0007sE-Ur for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:54:13 -0400
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G15O7-0001jq-Jc for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:54:13 -0400
Received: from [132.219.18.179] (h12b3-net84db.lab.risq.net [132.219.18.179] (may be forged)) by vapor.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id k6DHpqH27935; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <44B68831.5000307@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:51:45 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] feedcback on tcp-secure-05
References: <44B682AB.9010702@isi.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0607132034230.8689@netcore.fi>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0607132034230.8689@netcore.fi>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.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://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0798123534=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org


Pekka Savola wrote:
> Note: I have not read the spec.  I'd intend to do it once it gets into
> WGLC.  But some follow-up to some of Joe's points below,
> 
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joe Touch wrote:
>> The doc continues to have a detailed but somewhat incomplete discussion
>> of the attack scenario; the point of tcp-antispoof was to provide a much
>> more detailed version of that discussion that should not be
>> recapitulated but rather cited.
> 
> You couldn't just simply cite it without any summary though, as
> antispoof is heading Informational, and doing so would likely require a
> down-ref.

It's not a down ref to cite an informational document informationally ;-)

>> No reasoning is given for numeric limits to ACK throttling (why 10 in 5
>> seconds? why not a ratio of the number of conventional ACKs provided)
> 
> Simpler to implement, maybe?

Sure, a fixed number is simpler, but a reason for the specific numbers
would be useful too.

Joe


_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email