RE: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?

"Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <ananth@cisco.com> Fri, 28 September 2007 18:51 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbKvX-0005K1-Ef; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:51:03 -0400
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IbKvV-0005F3-Cw for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:51:01 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbKvU-0005DR-N8 for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:51:00 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbKvT-0001Oo-GU for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:51:00 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,210,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="529406946"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2007 11:50:59 -0700
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l8SIowOc024896; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:50:58 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l8SIoj1r001691; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:50:50 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:50:46 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:50:44 -0700
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580409FB0B@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070928181707.245AB2A9F8D@lawyers.icir.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
Thread-Index: AcgB+/lsj99sURDqQRuUGXJVM6wmZAAAqKKQ
From: "Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: <mallman@icir.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Sep 2007 18:50:46.0345 (UTC) FILETIME=[7ACB2B90:01C80200]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1410; t=1191005458; x=1191869458; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ananth@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Anantha=20Ramaiah=20\(ananth\)=22=20<ananth@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[tcpm]=20tcpsecure=3A=20how=20strong=20to=20recommend ?=20 |Sender:=20; bh=TzjKRQ4OHRVYRvOvz/cmoNbsnM8x794vliizLZUjAq4=; b=ONruL5p4007QC2qqwJKb1v/Rk/iJi3AwiOtK9lwdm02G8ClGAyS0od2petE5yBb6MRjlfklu XZG9DsVl8TVLf7iuWvUVN53wfxtAnJN77wDdF8Gnt03XlFp4Wi4F3Syr;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mallman@icir.org [mailto:mallman@icir.org] 
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:17 AM
> To: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
> Cc: David Borman; Pekka Savola; tcpm@ietf.org; Fernando Gont
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend? 
> 
> 
> (Hat on.  I just talked to Ted about this and he is in 
> agreement with this request, but has not seen the text I am 
> about to type ...)
> 
> It seems to me that this discussion is really divergent 
> because there is no applicability statement in the document, 
> per Lars' comment.  I wonder if you guys could go off and 
> generate such a statement and then we could re-visit this 
> question.  I think that would factor things into a question 
> of "where" this is applicable and then how strongly we want 
> to advocate these mitigations within that context.  Is that 
> reasonable?

Well, if the applicability statement is needed for making some forward
progress of the draft, then we need to do it. 

Is there any particular format which we are looking at? Lars's email, if
I remember correctly, also acknowledged the fact that not too many RFC's
in the past have had these sort of applicability statements in place. So
wondering any examples/ where to place one such ie., should it be a
separate section like "Security considerations" ?

-Anantha


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