Re: [tcpm] Comments on TCP-AO Draft

"Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <Wesley.M.Eddy@nasa.gov> Tue, 18 November 2008 01:40 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 B483C3A6922; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:40:15 -0800 (PST)
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 311D63A6922 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:40:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, 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 erJK-vHxl6RN for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:40:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ndmsnpf01.ndc.nasa.gov (ndmsnpf01.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.0.121]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707323A6909 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:40:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ndjsppt03.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsppt03.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.1.102]) by ndmsnpf01.ndc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A5FA7F6; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:40:11 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ndjsxgw03.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsxgw03.ndc.nasa.gov [129.166.32.111]) by ndjsppt03.ndc.nasa.gov (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mAI1eBM7014972; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:40:11 -0600
Received: from NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov ([129.166.32.124]) by ndjsxgw03.ndc.nasa.gov with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:40:11 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:40:15 -0600
Message-ID: <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E7A337F@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <49221a2b.27b38c0a.57ac.771b@mx.google.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Comments on TCP-AO Draft
Thread-Index: AclJHOwzJhH0YVUJQJmpUsF7g1SeIAAAZUiw
References: <66F9363AB70F764C96547BD8A0A3679E154CB4@USDALSMBS05.ad3.ad.alcatel.com> <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E7A3296@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov> <49221a2b.27b38c0a.57ac.771b@mx.google.com>
From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <Wesley.M.Eddy@nasa.gov>
To: "Gregory M. Lebovitz" <gregory.ietf@gmail.com>, "LANGE Andrew" <Andrew.Lange@alcatel-lucent.com>, <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Nov 2008 01:40:11.0435 (UTC) FILETIME=[98926FB0:01C9491E]
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Comments on TCP-AO Draft
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gregory M. Lebovitz [mailto:gregory.ietf@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:28 PM
>To: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]; LANGE Andrew; tcpm@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [tcpm] Comments on TCP-AO Draft
>
>> > ...
>> >
>> >"..omit an explicit algorithm ID..." -- I've said this before,
>> >this is a BAD IDEA^tm. The protocol utility of doing this is
>> >minimal (1-bit increase in search space), and the operational
>> >complexity goes up.  Not to mention, it makes it operationally
>> >incompatible with existing implementations.
>>
>>
>>There was logic given to support each side of the argument.  My
>>understanding of the summary for each position is:
>>
>>(position 1 - "include") Including information like algorithm ID
>>and k-bit is BAD because it aids in debugging of implementations
>>and of configurations.
>
>Wes, did you mean to say "GOOD" instead of "BAD" in this paragraph? 
>I'll assume yes.



Yes; thanks for catching that ...

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