Hi Donald, as the document shepherd, I need to set the record straight on this,
as your statement is simply false.
In checking that the WGLC comments had been handled in the following document
update, I looked at both the email thread you participated in and the updated
document. In this case, the editor very clearly responded to your inputs and
made significant changes to the document.
You can find an entirely new section (9.7 Connectionless Resets) starting in
version 09 of the draft, which specifically responds to your comments with
resolutions that were discussed on the mailing list. This section discusses
maintenance of the traffic keys across reboots which answers your concern and
makes the practice a "SHOULD" which is stronger even than the "MAY" that you
mention below.
I do not understand why you feel like your inputs were ignored, but I hope that
you'll agree that this was not the case.
________________________________________
From: tcpm-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [tcpm-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Smith, Donald [Donald(_dot_)Smith(_at_)qwest(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 2:45 PM
To: 'ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org'; 'IETF-Announce'
Cc: 'tcpm(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org'
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt (The TCP
Authentication Option) to Proposed Standard
I have commented numerous times that with a paragraph that specifically
provides vendors to make "connection-less resets == attack packets" this will
not get much if any use among ISPs or other bgp speakers.
Those statements have pretty much been ignored.
I do not support this draft and believe I have wasted my time trying to explain
why to someone that is unwilling to compromise with even a "a vendor MAY
maintain state to allow connectionless resets to work".
(coffee != sleep) & (!coffee == sleep)
Donald(_dot_)Smith(_at_)qwest(_dot_)com gcia
-----Original Message-----
From: tcpm-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:tcpm-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:25 AM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: tcpm(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [tcpm] Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt (The
TCP Authentication Option) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor
Extensions WG (tcpm) to consider the following document:
- 'The TCP Authentication Option '
<draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt-10.txt> as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive
comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2010-03-10. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case,
please
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-o
pt-10.txt
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=vie
w_id&dTag=16685&rfc_flag=0
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the communication and any attachments.
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf