[12:08:54] --- weddy has joined
[12:09:46] --- weddy has left
[14:55:52] --- LOGGING STARTED
[18:14:54] --- ananth has joined
[18:15:09] --- ananth has left
[20:28:30] --- mallman has joined
[20:31:08] --- Faber has joined
[20:31:20] <Faber> You on the audio?
[20:31:44] <Faber> Randall just asked about us.
[20:32:57] --- lars.eggert@googlemail.com has joined
[20:34:00] <mallman> i am on audio
[20:34:07] <mallman> but, i stepped out of the office for a moment
[20:34:22] <Faber> Cool. Thanks for all the setup work.
[20:34:26] <mallman> what did rrs just ask?
[20:35:03] <mallman> no problem on the setup
[20:35:10] <mallman> i note we did not get slides from ......
[20:35:13] <mallman> ...... our AD
[20:35:18] <Faber> He noticed Lars wasn't us.
[20:35:31] <Faber> I'm not picking on Lars today. :-)
[20:35:31] <mallman> oh
[20:36:56] --- mallman has left
[20:38:02] --- mallman has joined
[20:39:10] --- shikob has joined
[20:41:26] --- mattz has joined
[20:41:31] --- Joe Touch has joined
[20:43:22] <mallman> can someone relay for ted and i?
[20:43:51] <mallman> btw- the chairing situation is due to a last minute family situation of mine. many appologies.
[20:43:59] <mallman> oh, lars will do it
[20:44:00] <mallman> thanks
[20:44:53] <Faber> Mike?
[20:45:03] <mallman> i think that was sally
[20:45:07] <mattz> yes
[20:45:15] <Faber> Ah.
[20:45:30] <Faber> I meant microphone.
[20:45:39] <mallman> i know
[20:45:48] <mallman> i meant i am a smart ass
[20:45:54] <mallman> and it is late
[20:45:55] <mallman> so.......
[20:45:57] <mattz> sally says "and I have slides"
[20:47:30] --- ananth has joined
[20:48:26] <ananth> Hi Lars, I am Anantha (TCP secure draft), I'll post the updated draft with the AS ec., in a couple of weeks
[20:48:37] <mallman> good
[20:48:39] <mallman> thanks!
[20:48:57] <ananth> :-) since Lar's mentioned abt it
[20:49:02] --- gorryf has joined
[20:50:49] <lars.eggert@googlemail.com> Anantha: thanks for the update
[20:51:17] <lars.eggert@googlemail.com> it might make sense to post the proposed text in an email first, before updating the draft
[20:51:25] <ananth> sure, will do
[20:51:34] <mallman> good idea
[20:51:42] <ananth> been a bit busy... but shd get that very soon...
[20:53:07] --- mjethanandani has joined
[20:56:00] <mallman> my hat-off vote: lets live with it. the cost of using a bit or chewing option space is too high. IMO. the cost of masking this is not high enough to warrent this use. (could someone relay?)
[20:56:29] --- lars.eggert@googlemail.com has left
[20:56:29] --- simon.schuetz has joined
[20:57:29] --- mjethanandani has left: Replaced by new connection
[20:57:29] --- mjethanandani has joined
[20:57:29] --- mjethanandani has left
[20:57:45] --- mjethanandani has joined
[20:58:42] <gorryf> I was at the Mic (sorry I didn't give my name)
[20:58:58] <mallman> we know you by voice
[20:58:59] <mallman> :)
[20:59:27] <mallman> yes
[20:59:30] <mallman> one vote for (1)
[20:59:59] <mallman> it is an engineering tradeoff here
[21:00:04] <mallman> this is just a judgment call
[21:01:03] <Faber> Yep. And we should get consensus on the list, IMHO.
[21:01:12] <mallman> right
[21:06:09] <Faber> We can't hear the audio right now, FYI
[21:06:21] <mattz> at all?
[21:06:31] <ananth> count++ me too
[21:07:01] <mallman> yeah- no audio here
[21:07:17] <Faber> Dead; can't reconnect
[21:07:18] <mattz> ++ : no audio or for option 1 on ECN SYN/ACK
[21:07:37] <Faber> No audio. (And he's for option 1 :-))
[21:09:10] <Faber> Oh, I thought you meant Allman. I don't know Anantha's position on ecn-syn
[21:09:27] <mallman> option 1 and no audio here
[21:09:28] <mallman> :)
[21:09:55] <ananth> Well I was busy checking whether we ignore ECN on SYN+ACK in our implementation... :-)
[21:10:12] <Faber> I'm getting "file not found" from the server.
[21:10:37] <mallman> that is what i see, too
[21:10:45] <mallman> we probably have ECN enabled on our SYNs
[21:10:47] <Faber> Did URLs change?
[21:10:56] --- mattz has left: Replaced by new connection
[21:11:08] --- mattz has joined
[21:11:38] --- lars.eggert@googlemail.com has joined
[21:11:40] <ananth> what is the audio conf system in use in IETF's? issue with no of ports etc.,?
[21:12:15] <mallman> you probably paused your connection and put it into the persist-of-death, dude
[21:12:31] <mallman> :)
[21:12:40] <ananth> ok, ok :-)
[21:12:46] <gorryf> Lars says the audio is not working... I'll scribe some notes...
[21:12:53] <mallman> thanks gorry
[21:12:54] <Faber> It's a streaming mp3 server of some kind. It was working earlier and not now,
[21:13:00] <Faber> Thanks Gorry!
[21:13:10] <mallman> there are a bunch of us here hanging on every ord you guys utter
[21:13:17] <simon.schuetz> audio broke a few times already today
[21:13:17] <gorryf> Plea fpr taking the FRTO to WGLC
[21:13:35] <mallman> WGLC seems like the next step
[21:13:42] <gorryf> First needs a green light for advancing to PS
[21:13:44] <mallman> (can be relayed if ted nods)
[21:13:50] <gorryf> Lars asks who supports this...
[21:14:04] <gorryf> Sally says its seems reasonable (from when she followed this)
[21:14:26] <mallman> frto should have gone PS to begin with (hat off comment)
[21:15:01] <Faber> Nod
[21:15:26] <gorryf> Lars expects it to go forward based on what was said, but leaves to the Chairs to consult the list
[21:15:53] <gorryf> Sally ACK CC
[21:15:54] <mallman> lars is right
[21:16:34] <gorryf> (I think so too, but was typing - this is one problem that we have a solution to, so we should take it forward)
[21:16:54] --- simon.schuetz has left
[21:17:49] --- lars.eggert@googlemail.com has left
[21:18:51] <gorryf> SACK is currently required in the draft - Sally now thinks it should be a SHOULD
[21:19:15] <Faber> I have audio
[21:19:19] --- simon.schuetz has joined
[21:19:22] <gorryf> Possible complications: TCP Implementations that skip ACK packets
[21:19:28] <mallman> audio back for ted and i
[21:20:02] --- mattz has left: Replaced by new connection
[21:20:43] --- mattz has joined
[21:20:55] --- lars.eggert@googlemail.com has joined
[21:21:35] <lars.eggert@googlemail.com> i have local network issues
[21:22:18] <mallman> i have read it
[21:22:28] <Faber> Allman's read it. :-)
[21:22:36] --- prattism has joined
[21:23:08] <lars.eggert@googlemail.com> audio back for everyone?
[21:23:13] <lars.eggert@googlemail.com> or: anone still without audio?
[21:23:16] <Faber> Yes
[21:23:22] <Faber> We have audio
[21:23:23] <mallman> i'm on audio
[21:23:25] <lars.eggert@googlemail.com> ok
[21:23:40] <ananth> audio is back for me..
[21:23:56] <mallman> part of the tcpsat talked about this issue, too
[21:24:07] <mallman> tcpsat RFC (research issues)
[21:24:31] --- mjethanandani has left
[21:24:40] <mallman> the middlebox stuff
[21:26:02] <Faber> FYI I heard gorry fine
[21:26:06] <Faber> :-)
[21:26:12] <gorryf> Lars said I di not use the Mic: RFC 3449 also specifies midbox things also could interact (perhaps)]
[21:26:22] <mattz> new topic: TCP Authentication Option / Joe touch
[21:26:39] * mattz will go back to taking notes...
[21:26:46] <mallman> thanks matt!
[21:27:26] --- prattism has left
[21:27:30] <Faber> Indeed - thanks Matt!
[21:39:06] <Faber> Never?
[21:39:25] <lars.eggert@googlemail.com> never reuse a key?
[21:41:47] <Faber> Yeah, but it's just unlikely.
[21:42:48] <Faber> Never for a single socket (4 tuple). Probably an unlikely event if you take even a small precaution to avoid it.
[21:42:50] <ananth> i agree it is difficult to impose the restriction of never re_using the key... typical BGP deployments don't do this..
[21:42:58] <Faber> A new TCP connection is well defined.
[21:43:02] <ananth> IMO
[21:43:22] <lars.eggert@googlemail.com> if you want me to relay something: write me a soundbite, pelase
[21:43:59] <Faber> Session is misleading. Joe means TCP connection lifetime which is well defined. You can relay that.
[21:44:27] --- shikob has left
[21:44:45] <lars.eggert@googlemail.com> will do
[21:45:44] <ananth> IMO, the open questions and other issues needs to be discussed in the list AND also this draft needs to be cross posted to some security aliases -- can be relayed..
[21:46:20] <lars.eggert@googlemail.com> it will be presented in saaag
[21:46:23] <lars.eggert@googlemail.com> saag
[21:46:35] <lars.eggert@googlemail.com> afaik on thursday
[21:46:38] <mallman> and, the open questions will certainly be discussed within TCPM
[21:46:38] <ananth> ok
[21:46:45] <mallman> the design team is done
[21:46:52] <mallman> this is all to be done in the open from this point forward
[21:49:22] <mallman> what lars just said reflects my hat-on hit on things
[21:49:43] <ananth> Question : why does the document specify "it obseletes 2385"? but you still allow 2385 to co-exist? confused.. -- can be relayed?
[21:50:50] <lars.eggert@googlemail.com> who is "you" in your question?
[21:51:01] <ananth> I mean the draft :-)
[21:51:05] <Faber> I think it will obsolete 2385.
[21:51:06] <ananth> I meant MD5??
[21:52:11] <ananth> ok
[21:52:13] <Faber> Can't hear
[21:52:16] <mallman> mic
[21:52:30] <ananth> can't hear
[21:52:33] <mallman> isnt 2385 in some strange state of depricated now? --can relay
[21:52:54] <mallman> nevermind
[21:52:58] <mallman> not important
[21:53:17] --- Joe Touch has left
[21:53:17] <ananth> nope, many SP's still use it.. something is better than nothing philosophy.. just to answer Mark..
[21:54:07] <mallman> ananth: i didnt ask if it was in use
[21:54:19] <mallman> there is a statement that basically says "dont use this"
[21:54:27] <mallman> but, there are caveats
[21:54:29] <mallman> like BGP
[21:54:35] <mallman> i remember this correctly, right?
[21:54:36] <ananth> I see...
[21:54:41] <Faber> I think we want to obsolete the old thing.
[21:54:55] <mallman> i think we do want to obsolete the old thing
[21:55:02] <Faber> You can never assert that you'll drop all packets of the old stuff
[21:55:11] <ananth> well, it is upto the comfort level of a particular SP.
[21:55:23] <ananth> they can still use MD5..
[21:55:26] <Faber> No new TCP-MD5 implementations should happen
[21:55:43] <ananth> we can't control it unfortunately, like you know :-)
[21:55:53] <mallman> we cannot control use
[21:55:59] <Faber> I won't come to your house, but the IETF thinks you should stop doing it.
[21:55:59] <mallman> but, we can control recommendation
[21:56:04] <ananth> sure...
[21:56:04] --- mattz has left: Replaced by new connection
[21:56:05] <mallman> we cannot outlaw stupidity
[21:56:38] <ananth> audio -- ??
[21:56:53] <Faber> Shit. Audio's out
[21:57:11] <gorryf> Joe says the MD5 hash was not going to be a viable hash for TCP-AUTH
[21:57:41] <gorryf> Lars - security areas has strong opinions on such things, TCPM should follow what they say.
[21:57:53] <gorryf> Lars - should we have 2 drafts?
[21:58:05] <gorryf> Lars says go with which is fastets
[21:58:13] <gorryf> gregory - recommends two.
[21:58:16] <mallman> one draft unless it is a problem (hat off)
[21:58:25] <gorryf> Brad Wise - two would be faster in the end]
[21:58:45] <mallman> two would be faster?
[21:58:52] <mallman> clearly not in this WG
[21:59:21] <gorryf> Lasr - what now needs to be done to the requirements?
[21:59:43] <gorryf> Joe - We could tweak them, the WG may wish to change some things.
[21:59:56] <Faber> We can hear again. Thanks, Gorry!
[21:59:58] <mallman> audio is back
[22:00:01] <mallman> thanks
[22:00:09] <gorryf> Brad speaking...
[22:00:19] <Faber> Yes, we've decided to obsolete BGP.
[22:00:30] <mallman> we dont need BGP
[22:00:32] <Faber> :-)
[22:00:36] <gorryf> :-)
[22:00:47] <mallman> routing is for the weak
[22:00:52] <ananth> hmm, and go back to the stone age :-)
[22:00:59] <Faber> Source route them all!
[22:01:01] <mallman> many thanks to lars and david
[22:01:10] <gorryf> It's all too confusing to me. I'm sure life would be better without routing
[22:01:13] <gorryf> End
[22:01:22] <mallman> and without packets
[22:01:32] <mallman> routing and packets are spurious
[22:01:42] <ananth> many jobs are at stake :-)
[22:01:45] --- mattz has joined
[22:01:46] --- lars.eggert@googlemail.com has left
[22:01:52] <mallman> dig ditches
[22:01:58] <mallman> i keep threatening to
[22:02:05] <mallman> 'night folks ... thanks!
[22:02:15] <Faber> Take care.
[22:02:18] --- Faber has left: offline
[22:02:22] <ananth> bye all
[22:02:30] --- mallman has left
[22:02:37] --- ananth has left
[22:03:45] --- simon.schuetz has left
[22:04:52] --- mattz has left
[22:05:07] --- gorryf has left
[22:18:31] --- simon.schuetz has joined
[22:18:41] --- simon.schuetz has left