Subject: [Tsvwg] New ID on TCP anti-spoofing

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:03:47 -0700

Hi, all,

A new ID is now available:
	draft-touch-tcp-antispoof-00.txt

For those on TCPM, this doc is the core of the previous 
draft-touch-anonsec-00.txt. Here's the difference:

	antispoof:	focuses on the spectrum of TCP antispoofing
			solutions, and explains why the recent attacks
			have become more significant (threat goes as
			square of bandwidth increase)

	anonsec-01:	discusses the use of IPsec and TCP/MD5 for
			anonymous client access, including existing
			configurations and some extensions that may
			be useful for even simpler configuration and
			higher performance

antispoof is intended to be of general transport-area interest, but will 
be presented at TCPM in San Diego to continue the thread created there 
by the IESG.

anonsec-01 will be presented separately at the security open area 
meeting (SAAG) in San Diego. FYI, that draft has not yet been posted (it 
focuses on the anonsec-specific portions of anonsec-00).

FYI - both docs are under 3667's "no derivative works, no mods" clause. 
If accepted for further development by an IETF WG, those clauses will be 
emended as required.

Feedback appreciated.

Joe
_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: "Randall Stewart (cisco)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 13:02:54 -0400

Joe:

>
> FYI - both docs are under 3667's "no derivative works, no mods" 
> clause. If accepted for further development by an IETF WG, those 
> clauses will be emended as required.

Any particular reason why you don't want the ietf to change your
documents on the way to becoming an RFC? (or am I reading
that section wrong of 3667?)?? Or are you stating in the second
sentence that if someone takes it on as a wg item you will
remove the "no derivative/no mod" clause from the drafts??

R

-- 
Randall R. Stewart
ITD - Transport Technologies
803-345-0369(o) or 815-342-5222(c)

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:08:51 -0700

> remove the "no derivative/no mod" clause from the drafts??

That's what I'm stating in the second sentence. I.e., if the IETF 
doesn't take them on, I retain edit rights, e.g., if they are instead 
published as individual RFCs or published elsewhere.