tcpm@ietf.org
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00

Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
From: Alejandro Acosta
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 16:51:33 -0430
+1

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) <ananth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

+1

FWIW, there is a recent proposal which talks about enhancing TCP
checksums as well :-

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-anumita-tcpm-stronger-checksum/

The above proposal tries to leverage on the TCP alternate checksum
option. My thinking it may be useful to have a "TCP generalized checksum
option" which can give the flexibility for a TCP stack to choose from a
set of checksum algorithms (of course the default stays what it is today
;-)

-Anantha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:tcpm-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Hagen Paul Pfeifer
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:36 AM
> To: Lars Eggert
> Cc: tcpm@xxxxxxxx Extensions
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
>
> * Lars Eggert | 2010-06-09 19:28:14 [+0300]:
>
> >Quite possibly the most boring RFC ever. But at least it's short.
> >Comments welcome.
>
> Lars, I thought about RFC 1145 "TCP Alternate Checksum
> Options", there are no real shortcomings in the RFC. It is
> not _widely_ deployed but there is no real security concern
> like say T/TCP.
>
> I thought only superseded or defective RFCs can be declared
> historic? I mean TCP Alternate Checksum Options _can
> eventually_ useful in the future for example Interplanetary
> TCP. Maybe some military sites already employ RFC 1145.
>
> HGN
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>