Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-00.txt

From: Tim Shepard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:03:32 -0400

OK.  Many people have pointed me at the news about BGP sessions being
long-lived and that the port numbers are exposed through publicly
readable network management tools.  (That explains the rather odd
out-of-the-blue reference in the draft to the BGP MD5 security
mechanism for TCP.)

Anyway... Yep.   That is a problem.

But the draft itself mentions none of that, and fails to explain what
real problem it is trying to solve.  Whether or not this is the right
place/way to be solving some problem is an interesting question.

It was the mention of the urgency on the tcpm mailing list that got
me to go read the draft.  It was a false (or at least very
misleading) alarm.  Nothing in this version of the draft seems to
be worthy of an urgent pointer.

			-Tim Shepard
			 [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm