Subject: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG adoption of draft-cheng-tcpm-fastopen-00

From: "SCHARF, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:01:25 +0200

Dear all,

in yesterday's TCPM meeting there was some support for WG adoption of
draft-cheng-tcpm-fastopen-00, heading towards experimental.

In order to determine the WG consensus, the chairs ask for additional
feedback on that draft. Please provide feedback whether you find this
draft useful or not, and whether you think that it should become a WG
item.

Also, please let us know if there should be technical issues that are
not addressed so far by the draft and that would require further
discussion or analysis.

Thanks

Michael

---

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 21:10:58 -0400

> draft useful or not, and whether you think that it should become a WG
Please note that I've previously stated that this is a really bad idea!

I was so irritated by this idea that I publicly posted an alternative
(that had been privately baking for some time).  It was forwarded to be
published as Experimental some time ago -- still awaiting IESG review.

I don't know how/why this was reconsidered at yet another meeting, as
there were no updates fixing anything that was raised previously.  Most
conferences (or working groups) don't allow multiple presentations of
the same paper.

> not addressed so far by the draft and that would require further
I could re-post my objections again, but really it boils down to:

1) insecure, demonstrates very poor knowledge of security principles.

2) doesn't work with commonly deployed middleboxen, degrades badly.