Re: [tcpm] TCPM and draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks

"Smith, Donald" <Donald.Smith@qwest.com> Fri, 19 February 2010 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <Donald.Smith@qwest.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 AB2CB3A8188 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:53:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.798, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 SpBv2kbpSsP5 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:53:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sudnp799.qwest.com (sudnp799.qwest.com [155.70.32.99]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B8E28C2A4 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:53:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from suomp61i.qintra.com (suomp61i.qintra.com [151.117.69.28]) by sudnp799.qwest.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o1JGsprx004827 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:54:52 -0700 (MST)
Received: from qtdenexhtm22.AD.QINTRA.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by suomp61i.qintra.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o1JGsjVE015607; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:54:46 -0600 (CST)
Received: from qtdenexmbm24.AD.QINTRA.COM ([151.119.91.226]) by qtdenexhtm22.AD.QINTRA.COM ([151.119.91.231]) with mapi; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:54:45 -0700
From: "Smith, Donald" <Donald.Smith@qwest.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:51:33 -0700
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] TCPM and draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks
Thread-Index: Acqw1BnmY4FSYKt4QkStxZmKZAqzoQAr7Co7
Message-ID: <B01905DA0C7CDC478F42870679DF0F100797030A39@qtdenexmbm24.AD.QINTRA.COM>
References: <20100218175622.61BB028C2E3@core3.amsl.com> <2002D196-D83C-4B44-870C-8E9A94D2D640@nokia.com> <4B7D8B9F.1010608@piuha.net> <4B7D8F55.90406@piuha.net> <4B7D92EB.7010407@isi.edu> <4B7D9655.1050804@piuha.net>, <4B7D9A20.7090403@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4B7D9A20.7090403@isi.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCPM and draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks
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: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:53:08 -0000

In my opinion;

3. The wg "opinion" is incorrect.
Several protocol vulnerabilities that are RFC based have been identified. We are supposed to be the group fixing TCP but instead this has become an informational RFC when it addresses basic protocol flaws.


(coffee != sleep) & (!coffee == sleep)
 Donald.Smith@qwest.com
________________________________________
From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch [touch@ISI.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 12:50 PM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCPM and draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks

Hi, Jari,

Jari Arkko wrote:
> Joe,
>
>> The short answer is that there wasn't rough consensus for these changes
>> in the WG, as explained in the note in the text.
>>
>
> Ok. And by the way, I didn't mean to imply that all of the changes
> should be adopted. But at least some of them seem... pretty reasonable
> and universal. Like ignoring source quench, for instance. But I admit
> that my knowledge of TCP practices is limited.

The WG decided to document "what is", and to indicate for each item
whether it was consistent with existing specs or not.

> However, *if* the document is right that the techniques are widely
> implemented, it is interesting that the WG does not agree that they are
> universally appropriate. Is (1) the reality different from what the
> document claims, (2) are these practices causing harm in the real world,
> or (3) is the working group opinion incorrect?

I don't think anyone wants the IETF to rubber-stamp deployed code for
that reason alone (e.g., consider Linux's inclusion of deprecated T/TCP,
or use of nonstandard TCP windowing). There are times it's useful to
modify the standards accordingly, there are times it's useful to declare
it a bug (RFC2525), and there are times - such as this one - where we
have no rough consensus on which way to go, but agree that it's useful
to know what's actually out there.

Joe

This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this communication
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the communication and any attachments.