Re: [tcpinc] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno

2017-03-07 Thread Joe Touch
On 3/7/2017 10:12 PM, David Mazieres expires 2017-06-05 PDT wrote: > Joe Touch writes: > >> On 3/7/2017 9:45 PM, dm-list-tcpcr...@scs.stanford.edu wrote: >>> Wesley Eddy writes: >>> > If a host sends a SYN-only SYN+ENO segment bearing data and

Re: [tcpinc] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno

2017-03-07 Thread Joe Touch
On 3/7/2017 9:45 PM, dm-list-tcpcr...@scs.stanford.edu wrote: > Wesley Eddy writes: > >>> If a host sends a SYN-only SYN+ENO segment bearing data and >>> subsequently receives a SYN-ACK segment without an ENO option, >>> that host MUST reset the

Re: [tcpinc] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno

2017-03-07 Thread dm-list-tcpcrypt
Wesley Eddy writes: >> If a host sends a SYN-only SYN+ENO segment bearing data and >> subsequently receives a SYN-ACK segment without an ENO option, >> that host MUST reset the connection even if the SYN-ACK segment >> does not

Re: [tcpinc] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno

2017-02-26 Thread Wesley Eddy
On 2/22/2017 1:58 PM, David Mazieres wrote: Wesley Eddy writes: 1) edge cases where you're communicating with non-ENO hosts, that do not discard data on SYNs (for whatever reason), and may pollute the data stream delivered to the application, breaking the goals of TCPINC

Re: [tcpinc] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno

2017-02-22 Thread Joe Touch
On 2/22/2017 10:58 AM, David Mazieres wrote: > Wesley Eddy writes: > >> 1) edge cases where you're communicating with non-ENO hosts, that do not >> discard data on SYNs (for whatever reason), and may pollute the data >> stream delivered to the application, breaking the

Re: [tcpinc] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno

2017-02-22 Thread David Mazieres
Wesley Eddy writes: > 1) edge cases where you're communicating with non-ENO hosts, that do not > discard data on SYNs (for whatever reason), and may pollute the data > stream delivered to the application, breaking the goals of TCPINC to > work without impacting the

Re: [tcpinc] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno

2017-02-15 Thread Joe Touch
> On Feb 15, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote: > > I haven't been following the WG discussions closely, so apologize in advance > if this has been beat to death ... In reviewing the present draft, section > 4.7 seems awkward to me. > > I think the WG should consider

Re: [tcpinc] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno

2017-02-06 Thread Holland, Jake
On 2/4/17, 11:40 AM, "David Mazieres" wrote: > Achieving stronger security with TCP-ENO requires verifying session > IDs. Any application relying on ENO for communications security MUST > incorporate session IDs into its endpoint authentication. By way

Re: [tcpinc] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno

2017-02-04 Thread Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)
[CCing TCPM for the part that matters to TCPM] > 4. citing drafts in support of future large SYN options: > “Is there harm in doing this? E.g., is it bad practice to cite internet > drafts (non-normatively, of course) in an RFC?” > > 4.a. Citing drafts does go against the current BCP, as I

Re: [tcpinc] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno

2017-02-04 Thread David Mazieres
Okay, here is some proposed language. For the definition of the "a" bit: a Legacy applications can benefit from updating their behavior to take advantage of TCP-level encryption, for instance by improving endpoint authentication or avoiding double encryption. The

Re: [tcpinc] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno

2017-02-03 Thread Holland, Jake
On 2/3/17, 6:27 PM, "David Mazieres" wrote: >"Holland, Jake" writes: >> Should my app set the a-bit? I think this version of the ENO draft >> says yes, because I have altered my behavior in the presence of >> encrypted TCP (and it wasn’t

Re: [tcpinc] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno

2017-02-03 Thread David Mazieres
"Holland, Jake" writes: > 2.a. A scenario for illustration: > > For instance, maybe next year somebody reads about ENO and decides to > upgrade protocol X, their proprietary gaming application protocol, so > that Xv2 will be identical except that the passphrase will now be >

Re: [tcpinc] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno

2017-02-03 Thread Holland, Jake
Hi David, Thanks for the response. I’ll try to give a deeper explanation on what I’m thinking on points #2 and #4 (“a-bit” and the draft-citing), and see if it leads to any further clarity or easier consensus. Sorry for the length, and please don’t feel a need to respond to each individual

Re: [tcpinc] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno

2017-02-02 Thread Holland, Jake
Hello tcpinc members, I’m new to the group, and joined at Kyle and David’s invitation to give a review of this draft before the WGLC expires: "TCP-ENO: Encryption Negotiation Option" https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno/ The doc mostly looks pretty good to me. I couldn’t