Re: [tcpm] WGLC: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-10.txt

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

FWIW, it seems like RFC1122 should be moved to normative.

Regarding some of the recent thread regarding the numbers in section
1.3 (Ted's comments, "finish the math"), I've noted before, as well,
that section 1.3 is redundant with RFC4953. Replicating the math isn't
needed. Also, the prediction regarding the impact of BW on the attack is
a guess in this doc, whereas in RFC4953 the relationship is explained.

Joe

David Borman wrote:
> 
> On Sep 28, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> 
>>> P24:
>>>
>>> Why are RFC's 4302 and 4303 normative?  And if they are why
>>> isn't RFC2385?  They're all referred to as possible
>>> mitigations.  My preference is making 4302 and 4303
>>> non-normative, but it's very likely that I'm missing a rule here.
>>
>> I am not sure about the rules here?  David/Wes what needs to be done
>> here ?
> 
> Typically normative references are things that a document depends on for
> understanding and/or implementation.  The only references to RFC 4302 &
> 4303 are to say that the only real way to secure a connection is using
> IPsec, and since this document deals with the absence of them, I agree
> with Ted, these should be informative references.
> 
>             -David
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjg694ACgkQE5f5cImnZrtsxQCgkNBjvjje7gc63/VsIjEvCU8m
KpQAoI798NpQRLmIWQoxxOWizSv8zYqu
=0+Tk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm