Tero,

Although I can't disagree with your assessment of the direct discussion
on protecting TCP headers, the conclusion below seems to ignore the
discussion on "Forcing the restart of a TCPINC connection".

I wonder how people think their solution will magically protect against
forced restarts if the TCP header isn't included.

Joe

On 3/11/2015 5:24 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> In the Honolulu meeting we had long discussion about whether to
> protect the TCP headers or not. There were several people who
> considered the main idea of tcpinc, to be to protect against
> passive attacks, and did not care that much about active attacks,
> i.e. didn't care for protection of the TCP headers. There were
> also few people in favor of protection of header bits, i.e.
> protect against active attacks.
> 
> Everybody wanted to protect data for integrity, i.e. MAC of data
> stream and protection against replay. As most people in he
> meeting did not seem to want to have protection against active
> attacks, it was decided that those people who do want protect TCP
> header, would send email to the list and explain why they want it
> and what features needs to be protected.
> 
> I sent out the request for such comments at 2014-11-15:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpinc/current/msg00393.html
> 
> In my analysis of the email thread, there were two people who
> said they would like to have some TCP features to be protected:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpinc/current/msg00396.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpinc/current/msg00403.html
> 
> There were more than dozen people discussing this in the meeting, and
> while people expressed opinions supporting the two options, we believe
> that there is more support for going for not protecting the header.
> Moreover, we believe that at this stage it is more important to make a
> decision and move forward.
> 
> Based on this the tcpinc chairs have decided that we will go with
> the option of NOT protecting the TCP headers.
> 
> This means that in Dallas IETF we should work forward based on
> this decision.
> 

_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc

Reply via email to