[anonsec] (resend) Problem/Applicability Statement WGLC summary and RFC publication request

[Yu-Shun Wang]

Hi,

Comments below.

Miika Komu wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Yu-Shun Wang wrote:

<...>

>> - Minor wording changes to regarding TCP-specific mods vs. HIP. Re:
>>   <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/anonsec/2006-December/000915.html>
>>
>> The full diffs between -04 and -05
>>
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic-05.txt> 
>>
>>
>> The authors think the doc is ready and would like to request
>> the publication of this doc as RFC.
> 
> This was my original two-part comment:

<...>

> The draft addresses my first consern but not the second. The section 
> that I am referring to ends in this words:
> 
>   Some of these modifications are new to TCP, but have already been
>   incorporated into other transport protocols (e.g., SCTP) or intermediate
>   (so-called L3.5) protocols (e.g., HIP) [13][18].
> 
> and the following section continues:
> 
>   The TCP-specific modifications are, at best, temporary patches to the
>   ubiquitous vulnerability to spoofing attacks.
> 
> HIP is also based on IPsec, so the implicit suggestion here that HIP is 
> vurnerable to TCP spoofing attacks is untrue. HIP modifies TCP 
> checksums, but this occurs using IPsec. I'd just suggest dropping the 
> HIP reference in the text.

The new wording specifically says "TCP-specific modifications"
which exclude SCTP and HIP, vs. the original text "Such
modifications" which can mislead readers regarding your concern.
I personally think the new wording is clear enough. Feel free
to provide text if you think it's not clear.

Thanks,

yushun