Re: [tcpm] [tsv-area] Fwd: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

I'd suggest over there. Or at least CC the folks that are on the  
current thread there, it's a pretty diverse set of people.

Lars

On 2008-10-2, at 20:24, ext Joe Touch wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi, Lars,
>
> Are you suggesting we have that discussion there, or that they move  
> this
> issue here (e.g., to TCPM or TSVAREA)?
>
> I would expect the latter would be more useful...
>
> Joe
>
> Lars Eggert wrote:
>> FYI, this discussion on the main IETF list needs input from transport
>> folks. Look at Section 7.3 of draft-stjohns-sipso-05.
>>
>> Lars
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: "ext Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
>>> Date: October 2, 2008 16:31:29 GMT+03:00
>>> To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
>>> Cc: draft-stjohns-sipso-05@tools.ietf.org, Sam Hartman
>>> <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, secdir@mit.edu, ietf@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05
>>>
>>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 22:12:17 -0400
>>> "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>   Steven> Note 7.3.1 on
>>>>>   Steven> TCP considerations.  (Also note that 7.3.1 disagrees
>>>>>   Steven> with 793 on the treatment of security labels in section
>>>>>   Steven> 3.6 of 793.  At the least, this shoudl be noted.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had completely missed this.  I'll call out the section to the
>>>>> transport ADs
>>>>>
>>>> I should have added: I think the new document is in fact more  
>>>> correct
>>>> than 793 -- the 793 scheme would permit various forms of
>>>> high-bandwidth covert channels to be set up.  This is an issue that
>>>> was not nearly that well understood when 793 was written.  That  
>>>> said,
>>>> it is a change to TCP, and needs to be treated as such.
>>>>
>>> Thinking further -- I suspect that the right thing to do here is for
>>> someone to write a short, simple draft amending 793 -- it's  
>>> handling of
>>> the security option is simply wrong, independent of this draft.  I
>>> wonder -- what TCPs actually implement even 793?  NetBSD doesn't; I
>>> strongly suspect that no BSDs do.  Does Solaris?  Linux?
>>>
>>>        --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ietf mailing list
>>> Ietf@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkjlA7UACgkQE5f5cImnZrszXQCeNkIxxBZUmEjidZBxwF5RMaDg
> sgEAn3aoDE4kcBsV7kglGiXvKbRWZwK6
> =fiTu
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [tcpm] [tsv-area] Fwd: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

Attachment: smime.p7s