Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <> Tue, 30 September 2008 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AEB728C15C; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1561628C15C for <>; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.257
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.257 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.342, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1IqtEAro7gd3 for <>; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 125DF28C11F for <>; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,338,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="84798948"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 30 Sep 2008 15:55:00 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m8UFt0va004644; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:55:00 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8UFt0Fh014294; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:55:00 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:54:58 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:55:03 -0700
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
Thread-Index: Acki4RvNIOXVI6qUSC6oKM1Xdr/yTwAK+9Hw
References: <> <><><> <>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <>
To: Lars Eggert <>, ext Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2008 15:54:58.0419 (UTC) FILETIME=[E3C16430:01C92314]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2989; t=1222790100; x=1223654100; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;;; z=From:=20=22Anantha=20Ramaiah=20(ananth)=22=20<ananth@cisco .com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[tcpm]=20another=20review=20of=20draft- ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10] |Sender:=20; bh=m6lTl7HPII7leQxg1nky0xhWHT8StPr9VHDFcE7S4mw=; b=G7qs0qx4t30yR417qfB91zdJei+u1WbpY8Mg2JDxonNSJQDXrBoeFSLitI dQ9IAKvTEUR/jC2WSthGeSTErJV43LoyTL827iCd9fszsxNrrY7DPrA6lsZ+ rLQpedR438UsQq2CzBszJn/9e4euQYW1E5pe+tza/Stk1+XHvh5TQ=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1;; dkim=pass ( sig from verified; );
Cc: "Mitesh Dalal (mdalal)" <>, Alfred HÎnes <>,,
Subject: Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[ I don't need to put on a special "hat" I guess ;-), I am commenting as a individual and not as the author]

To me, "updates" is just a quick reference indicating that the current draft contents updates some of the material of the original draft. Now,, nobody would take this as a recommendation or an implementation advice, IMO. The word "updates" cannot be perceived as an override of the applicability statement or the mitigation strengths decsribed in the draft. Therefore, I don't think that the word "updates" has the effect of "if you implement 793 you should also implement this draft". It also doesn't imply a "blanket recommendation" in any sense.

May be it is a good idea to get the opinions of IESG in this matter ?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On 
> Behalf Of Lars Eggert
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 2:43 AM
> To: ext Joe Touch
> Cc: Alfred HÎnes;; Anantha Ramaiah (ananth); 
>; Mitesh Dalal (mdalal)
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
> Hi,
> (individual hat on)
> On 2008-9-29, at 20:31, ext Joe Touch wrote:
> > Is it possible that a SHOULD isn't considered a "updates"?
> RFC2119 language has nothing to do with the "updates" relationship.  
> It's the applicability that matters.
> "Updates 793" on document X means "if you implement 793 you 
> also need to implement X". That is, because "updates" is 
> typically used when a new document fixes critical bugs in an 
> existing specification or adds mandatory new functionality.
> For this document the applicability statement is basically 
> "SHOULD implement when vulnerable, MAY otherwise". That's a 
> conditional "updates". Unfortunately, the "updates" header 
> isn't expressive enough to convey this.
> We're left with two less-than-optimal choices: Add "updates 
> 793", which doesn't capture the conditional expressed by the 
> applicability statement, or omit "updates 793", which is also 
> inaccurate.
> My reason for suggesting to omit the "updates" - and this is 
> a personal preference, I'll respect the WG decision and would 
> like to head other opinions - is that a plain "updates 793" 
> looks like a "you must implement this when implementing 793", 
> and we had a long discussion around the applicability 
> statement that seemed to indicate that the WG didn't want to 
> make this blanket recommendation.
> Lars
> PS: As an example, look at the recent RFC5348, which is TFRC. 
> It obsoletes RFC3448 (which was the old version of TFRC) but 
> it also updates RFC4342 (DCCP's CCID3), which implements TFRC 
> inside DCCP. The "updates" relationship here means that CCID3 
> implementations must now
> (also) implement RFC5348, i.e., the new version of TFRC.
tcpm mailing list