Folks-
We would like to open a discussion on the path forward for the
"tcpsecure" i-d. We are interested in having a discussion of the
high-order bits about the document, its fixes, its IPR constraints,
etc. In this thread, we are not interested in dealing with the
nitty gritty technical details. (However, please continue the
ongoing threads about such issues in parallel.)
The draft is:
draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-00.txt
Also, since we posted about the IPR statement Cisco issued regarding
this draft, the statement has been revised. The current statement
is at:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure.txt
Given the draft, the conversation on the list and the IPR disclosure
we are interested in hearing people's high-order bits on how to
proceed. To us, the possible space seems to look like this:
(a) the draft represents a solid technical contribution that
mitigates a real problem and this WG should work on this i-d
in the context of Cisco's given IPR statement
this is not to say that the WG couldn't also undertake
alternate solutions in addition to those outlined in this
document
(b) regardless of IPR the changes proposed in this draft should not
be worked on by this WG
(b.1) because changes are not needed
(if the WG takes this path then there would need to be
a discussion of whether a document outlining the
problem and the current mitigations would be useful)
(b.2) because there are better ways to protect TCP against the
attacks than those given in this document
(c) due to the IPR restraints placed on the technology in the draft,
this WG should not do further work on the i-d
(again, this would be cause for a follow on conversation
about alternate techniques or documents describing the
problems and already available mitigations)
Also, note that the draft has several different mitigations. And,
so it is possible that one believes each of these mitigations falls
along a different path in the space sketched above. If this is
where your opinions lie, please indicate that in a response.
We would love to hear from as many people as possible on this issue.
On-list responses are preferred.
Thanks!
Ted & Mark
Attachment:
pgpDOoG8bF8UU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm