IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Mon, 01 October 2007 16:35 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 1IcOEu-0008U9-Lm; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:35:24 -0400
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IcOEt-0008LN-KS for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:35:23 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IcOEt-0008LE-7l for tcpm@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:35:23 -0400
Received: from pork.icsi.berkeley.edu ([192.150.186.19]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IcOEs-00075N-SC for tcpm@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:35:23 -0400
Received: from guns.icir.org (adsl-69-222-35-58.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [69.222.35.58]) by pork.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l91GZLj0017989; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:35:21 -0700
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (adsl-69-222-35-58.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [69.222.35.58]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1046101A380; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:35:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA472ABFBA; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:34:02 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580409FF13@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR)
Song-of-the-Day: Car Phone
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:34:02 -0400
Message-Id: <20071001163402.9CA472ABFBA@lawyers.icir.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mallman@icir.org
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="===============1460851551=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

> If we believe there isn't
> even a rough consensus after the responses so far, what is the next
> step? Curious.

Per my previous email:

  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?

(From which my understanding was that you guys were going to generate
said statement.)

allman




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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email