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

"Mitesh Dalal \(mdalal\)" <mdalal@cisco.com> Sat, 29 September 2007 21:08 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 1IbjYK-00027O-HW; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:08:44 -0400
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IbjYK-00025p-1W for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:08:44 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbjYJ-000248-M4 for tcpm@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:08:43 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbjYJ-0007Gs-8U for tcpm@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:08:43 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,213,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="529686356"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Sep 2007 14:08:42 -0700
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l8TL8gUN023571; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:08:42 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l8TL8e1l028366; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 21:08:40 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:08:40 -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: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:08:39 -0700
Message-ID: <13D1EAB852BE194C94773A947138483D04245252@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070929002353.E84E02AA66C@lawyers.icir.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
Thread-Index: AcgCL/1y4YrB2kPNQ7+ZmL3sla2VygAq0XVA
From: "Mitesh Dalal \(mdalal\)" <mdalal@cisco.com>
To: <mallman@icir.org>, "Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <ananth@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Sep 2007 21:08:40.0337 (UTC) FILETIME=[E8E3E810:01C802DC]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2396; t=1191100122; x=1191964122; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mdalal@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Mitesh=20Dalal=20\(mdalal\)=22=20<mdalal@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[tcpm]=20tcpsecure=3A=20how=20strong=20to=20recommend ?=20 |Sender:=20; bh=B76hOTaD9ofQ3ulKr+a8Hs473xilLz6T/MSX8tXotiA=; b=psGt9H+kT8XYZxZs8M/DSQqa5yhxyIo5RrPMf0dDJSeJACkoomwWiH4Vr0qsDH2BsEDdGz3Q 4upCaY1DbAUjqOVmBwANTED1A0stcd73x+6PGTZCLQCTxGykTt1dph+P;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=mdalal@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
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

FWIW, I think we need to address the fundamentals first, as echoed by
Lars, Tim and your truly
some time back. i.e. are we labeling this changes as updates to rfc793 ?
Will we clearly state
(if the document proceeds to  standards track) to state "Updates: 793"
in the title of the document ?

OR

are we looking it as an additional protocol that can be added/embedded
to TCP (although there is no handshake to signal this understanding
between the TCP peers to distinctly picture this as an option,
but a small protocol nevertheless) and does not necessarily update the
base spec ? 

Once we hash this out, we can start the may/should/must nomenclature
consensus drive.

I may be the only voice that is unclear on this, but atleast we get to
hear how folks perceive this.

Mitesh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Allman [mailto:mallman@icir.org] 
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 5:24 PM
> To: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend? 
> 
> 
> > In the last meeting in Chicago, it was pointed out the only pending 
> > issue is the "strength of the mitigations". 3 choices were listed, 
> > people picked the choices ( Careful not to use the "vote" since you 
> > don't seem to like it :-), So I would think the next step 
> is to pick 
> > on whichever choice comes up as popular and move on. I for 
> one don't 
> > see anything wrong with that approach.
> > 
> > Atleast I am missing as to what would constitute a "rough 
> consensus" ?
> 
> First, it isn't me that doesn't like the word "vote".  It is 
> the IETF that doesn't take "votes".  Taking "votes" is 
> problematic.  Take a look at some of the IETF process 
> documents, the Tao of the IETF, etc.  These explain why there 
> are not votes within the IETF and the rationale behind the 
> consensus process.
> 
> It seems to me that in this case it is clear that the WG is 
> not generally of one mind (i.e., come to consensus), with a 
> non-trivial number of folks wanting MAYs, SHOULDs and and/or 
> some combination (via picking some MAYs and some SHOULDs or 
> using conditionals or whatever).
> If you can show us that we're reading this wrong and that in 
> fact these folks are outliers then please do.
> 
> allman
> 
> 
> 
> 


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