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

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Fri, 28 September 2007 18:21 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 1IbKSa-0004TM-Ey; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:21:08 -0400
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IbKSY-0004Q4-M8 for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:21:06 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbKSY-0004Pw-By for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:21:06 -0400
Received: from pork.icsi.berkeley.edu ([192.150.186.19]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbKSY-0008Np-0I for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:21:06 -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 l8SIKuAs026977; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:20:56 -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 AE3F6FFF00F; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:20:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23FD2A9FD5; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:19:41 -0400 (EDT)
To: Tim Shepard <shep@alum.mit.edu>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
In-Reply-To: <E1IaVI6-0005N1-00@alva.home>
Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR)
Song-of-the-Day: Car Phone
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:19:41 -0400
Message-Id: <20070928181941.F23FD2A9FD5@lawyers.icir.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, "Mitesh Dalal \(mdalal\)" <mdalal@cisco.com>, Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
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="===============0780947631=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

> So I ask: is BTNS succeeding such that it is a viable alternative to
> this tcpsecure draft?

The way I view the world here, this question is not particularly
germane.  This WG has taken on a work item to produce tcpsecure.  At
some point perhaps there will be a larger cross-area/WG discussion of
techniques to aid robustness in the face of spoofing and the IETF can
then puzzle through what we like and what we do not.  However, I don't
think this WG is going to make those sorts of decisions.

allman



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