Security Assessment of TCP at the IETF

Fernando Gont fernando at gont.com.ar
Sat Jun 27 14:50:50 CDT 2009


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hello, folks,

In February this year the UK CPNI published the document "Security
Assessment of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)" (available at:
http://www.cpni.gov.uk/Docs/tn-03-09-security-assessment-TCP.pdf)

Earlier this year we published an IETF Internet-Draft version of this
document (available at:
http://www.gont.com.ar/drafts/tcp-security/draft-gont-tcp-security-00.txt)
in the hope of having the IETF further work on the TCP security paper UK
CPNI had published.

My personal take (possibly biased, since I am the document author)
is that this document has been the result of a lot of work (including
the work of the many peple that reviewed the CPNI version of the
document), and that the IETF should take this chance to work and publish
something on the subject.

The chairs of the TCPM Working Group of the IETF are currently polling
the WG for input about this document. It would be great if you could
voice your opinion about whether the TCPM should take this document on,
and also whether you would be willing to review this document. (Bellow
you'll find a copy of the TCPM chairs' poll)

Please send your comments to tcpm at ietf.org (and please CC me).

Thanks!

Kind regards,
Fernando




- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [tcpm] poll for adopting draft-gont-tcp-security
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:25:04 -0500
From: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon] <wesley.m.eddy at nasa.gov>
To: tcpm Extensions WG <tcpm at ietf.org>

TCPMers, there was a thread a while ago about working on
draft-gont-tcp-security in this working group that didn't
conclusively give us a feeling one way or other:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04489.html

Basically, my understanding is that there are at least a
handful of people in the WG that think it should be done
here as a WG item (more likely for Informational rather
than BCP), and there are also some expressed opinions on
why it shouldn't.

Given the raw size of the document, if the WG intends to
take this document on, then we need some people to clearly
commit to putting cycles into review and contributions to
the document.  Since it is quite large, and to my knowledge,
there hasn't been a specific technical review of the content
on this list, but just discussions about if the idea in
general is a good or bad thing, we still need to know if
people are willing to invest their time and energy in this.

Please let us know if there is traction for this in the
near term, and/or we can also discuss it in Stockholm.

- ---------------------------
Wes Eddy
Network & Systems Architect
Verizon FNS / NASA GRC
Office: (216) 433-6682
- ---------------------------

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm


- --
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando at gont.com.ar || fgont at acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJKRngWAAoJEJbuqe/Qdv/xn7AIAMeN8Yz3JeAC+WIbThkBK7Xe
D/kRdi6mO7ffX2etNPec4vlgbrzkjnef3PTB6GGrJGkyACm/J/NuMEj/1k8GqqtS
7byVkfTQSDsm64e44el4A6tqGlxw/GnRagK5I9VpC8PvTeLuhAxCuMhblhpeZQyD
SdnOInqxXYg57FDXPWq1bWIvNWZ8xUAAmAbE5ppSOYBGUoG5jua4ONGDdo5FYvpz
ABvVF1lKds+4dGimGjEHH10OIaVhHvuxIX2IIsG0REBHkK3z/Pij7+RvrrlsIRLS
R0rvgCL78nQCvyYYiepcKpMrL6iEe3YP4RlVfTgnhKI+a3qZo0TFTSjheuh6Bmg=
=6b3p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




More information about the NANOG mailing list