Re: [Tsvwg] WGLC for Port Randomization starts now (April 1st)

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Mon, 25 May 2009 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622783A6F8A for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 May 2009 09:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.564
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BlDHUES5lDaq for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 May 2009 09:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099943A6A32 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 May 2009 09:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.46] (pool-71-106-119-240.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.119.240]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4PGF0cn010395; Mon, 25 May 2009 09:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A1AC404.1090605@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 09:15:00 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
References: <20090415033307.F00C0CD585E@lawyers.icir.org> <4A037030.6040107@isi.edu> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58074EEED6@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <4A1AB6EE.5080900@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <4A1AB6EE.5080900@gont.com.ar>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "James Polk (jmpolk)" <jmpolk@cisco.com>, "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, mallman@icir.org
Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] WGLC for Port Randomization starts now (April 1st)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:13:52 -0000

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



Fernando Gont wrote:
> Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> 
>> Hmm.. I missed this one.. The draft which we had put out more than an
>> year ago DOES talk about keeping state at the peer to minimize
>> collisions. It lists a few algorithms to that effect as well.
> 
> They probably mean that additional work is required only on the side
> that performed the passive close. (i.e., half of the work is already done).

I made the observation, and yes, that's what I meant.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkoaxAQACgkQE5f5cImnZrsZLwCgxmmaZucDgRhxHsIekhIzPAlp
51AAoKs0MF2qfCnC66NPD1/QB4FABrbO
=vDw2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----