Subject: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-antispoof-05.txt (Ends 2 Feb 2007)

From: Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:24:41 -0800

Hi.

As we mentioned in San Diego, the anti-spoof document is ready for a
second last call.  We're primarily checking to see that issues brought
up in the first WGLC have been addressed.  You can find much of that
discussion starting here:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg01890.html

The draft is available from 

ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-antispoof-05.txt

Comments (including positive ones, please) to the list.

This WGLC will end 2 Feb 2007 - a little more than 2 weeks from now.

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

---

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:08:08 -0500

> Comments (including positive ones, please) to the list.

Consider this a positive comment.  I've read both the current document
and some previous versions.  I think all the issues I noticed in
previous versions have been solved, and I think this is ready to publish
as an RFC.

I found the draft very helpful in understanding the aspects of the
problem and the gamut of solution approaches that TCPM has discussed.  I
hope other WGs that maintain well-established protocols follow this
example in documenting problems that are found over time and solution
approaches that are proposed.  Too often we only see a gamut of
solutions published, and no good description of the actual problem or
the engineering tradeoffs between the solutions.

-- 
Wesley M. Eddy
Verizon Federal Network Systems
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

---

From: Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:47:42 -0800

> This WGLC will end 2 Feb 2007 - a little more than 2 weeks from now.

Just a reminder: this WGLC has one week left.  I've only seen one
message about the draft.  Passing a WGLC requires some reaction from the
group.  If you're interested in seeing this work done and believe that
this document represents a reasonable consensus, please speak up.  And,
of course, if you see problems with the draft, also speak up.

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:24:17 +0200

> This WGLC will end 2 Feb 2007 - a little more than 2 weeks from now.

I did my AD review during WGLC to speed up things a bit.

Overall, this is a very solid document that is ready for publication.

There are some minor boilerplate and spelling/grammar issues. Since I  
know Joe uses Word, turn on spelling and grammar checks :-) If there  
are more substantial comments that would require a revision now, fix  
these nits, too, otherwise they can wait until AUTH48.

 >    At 1 Mbps, 57,000 (40
 >    byte) RSTs would take over 50 minutes to transmit, and, as noted
 >    earlier, most current connections are fairly brief by comparison.

   57000*8*40 = 18,240,000 bits need 18.24 seconds with 1Mbps

Lars

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:16:05 -0800

Hi, all,

I received some detailed corrections from Alfred Hoenes, noting the
issues below, as well as the suggestion to include a sentence on NATs.

Would it be more useful to make these corrections before or after the WG
sends the document on? (and can they be done without yet another WGLC?)

Joe

Lars Eggert wrote:
> know Joe uses Word, turn on spelling and grammar checks :-) If there are
> more substantial comments that would require a revision now, fix these
> nits, too, otherwise they can wait until AUTH48.
> 
>>    At 1 Mbps, 57,000 (40
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 
----------------------------------------
Joe Touch
Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:26:42 +0200

> sends the document on? (and can they be done without yet another  

I'd be better to fix these before the document goes to the IESG.  
Editorial fixes don't require another WGLC.

Lars