Fernando Gont wrote:
Lars Eggert wrote:
I agree with Joe that some of the hardening techniques that vendors are
implementing come with consequences (make TCP more brittle). To me, this
is a *reason* this document should be published via the IETF (i.e.,
TCPM) - we are probably in the best position to correctly evaluate and
classify the impact of various hardening techniques. Stack vendors have
been putting these mechanisms in to their stacks without clear
specifications and discussions of the potential upsides and downsides
that would let them make an educated decision. It seems clear to me that
the vendor community is looking for guidance here, and I do believe the
IETF should give it.
This is the reason for which the output of the CPNI project was
submitted as an IETF I-D.
Yeah - so then this would be tested across all of the local TCP
implementations including the MS, AT&T *(i.e. Lachman Associates Inc)
and possibly Mentat's fast system?
Kind regards,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.57/2059 - Release Date: 04/14/09 14:52:00
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf