Re: [tcpm] poll for adopting draft-gont-tcp-security

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

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



Fernando Gont wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>>> Obviously, it would be entirely unreasonable for someone to argue
>>> against
>>> this document's adoption as a WG item while simultaneously using this
>>> same
>>> document as an example of acknowledgement of decided WG issues not
>>> written
>>> anywhere else, for that would be... well, hypocrisy.
>>
>> If this document contained only information of decided WG issues,
>> including WG consensus on those issues, you would be correct. I have
>> pointed out several cases where that is not the case - and that has been
>> (and remains) my concern.
> 
> On April 13
> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04501.html) you
> said: "Implementation advice is outside the scope of the IETF. It's not
> even operational, IMO.". i.e., you argued that we should *dismiss* this
> I-D (draft-gont-tcp-security).

That's correct, but please re-read what I wrote above. The doc does not
contain only info the WG has consensus on.

> So...if your opinion has now changed, and the only problem you have with
> this I-D is the section on "ICMP processing", would you support
> draft-gont-tcp-security (or at least not object its adoption as a wg
> item) were I to, e.g., remove the section on ICMP processing, replace it
> with a summary of what's in draft-ietf-icmp-attacks, or e.g., note that
> the provided advice is only for TCP implementations that desire good
> resiliency?

It may be useful to explain how to efficiently implement reordering and
reassembly, but not in an RFC.

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

iEUEARECAAYFAkpPgkMACgkQE5f5cImnZrv+2gCYquNRkPnTVu8qBKDPeh4esMKB
2gCfWBKmax95BOFpERwDkAuV3bymn/w=
=WRBZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----