IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt-01

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 29 July 2008 14:14 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 D65B53A6982; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:14:58 -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 3E8163A6A8A for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_WANT=2.3]
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 tRf-bTMO2knZ for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C563A6982 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.20.69] ([130.129.20.69]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6TECnpm011310 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <488F2541.2070800@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:12:17 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
References: <20080728042451.C7A174B7AD3@kilo.rtfm.com><488D6968.9010102@isi.edu><20080728131254.3DD764B88F7@kilo.rtfm.com><488DD77D.9070608@isi.edu><20080728144721.AC9184B905A@kilo.rtfm.com><488DE021.7070307@isi.edu><396556a20807280931i257c6597o14cf45f8710611bf@mail.gmail.com><20080728164235.8DD974B96B6@kilo.rtfm.com><488E0749.4020402@isi.edu><396556a20807281106kfe6eb89sdb32d3836e508ea0@mail.gmail.com><0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58058C3506@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com><488F1DE0.3060502@isi.edu> <20080729135300.0E4AD4BD2AA@kilo.rtfm.com> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58058C3545@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58058C3545@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>, tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt-01
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
...
|> If you want to have partial coverage, this should be handled
|> at the TCP-AO level.
|
| I agree and that was what I was thinking when I was proposing this.
|
|> I appreciate that you're trying to isolate the crypto from
|> the TCP-AO service, but I don't think you can isolate it to
|> this extent.
|
| Agreed. It needs to come from TCP-AO level even it means changing the
| format of the TCP-AO option to accomadate this. As an end user of this
| option I wan't to know how much was "digested" explicitly conveyed as
| opposed to implicit schemes. Having this in TCP-AO allows a  per packet
| granularity and that is good to have, IMO, if we are going down this
| route.

Can you explain how this might correlate to a segment? or why
per-segment info is needed?

More to the point, given there is no corresponding UDP-lite for TCP, why
is this needed for TCP-AO?

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkiPJUAACgkQE5f5cImnZrug9ACfZgG3XRUhfSJRaUTuR1Zu1XW2
h84AoJLGca92VkMp8NvqgMWsFoB48SD2
=ACpR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email