Subject: [Tsvwg] a proposal for a different No-Data-Touch framer for TCP

From: "Julian Satran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:49:01 +0200

Dear Colleagues:

I've recently submitted a draft including a different "No-Data-Touch"(NDT) 
framer.
Unlike the current proposed NDT framer that has a "mistake" probability 
that increases asymptotically (to 1) with the stream length the framer I 
am suggesting has a very low and constant mistake probability and is thus 
safe to use even in the absence of alignment or in the presence of 
re-segmentation.

It does not contain the standard RFC2026 reference not as an indication of 
patent - I have no  patent on it and I do not know about the existence of 
one (nor did I search thoroughly) - but rather as a sign of discomfort for 
it to be used without me being asked about it.

Until it apperas you can find it also at:

http://www.haifa.il.ibm.com/satran/ips/draft-satran-NDT-Framing-00.pdf

http://www.haifa.il.ibm.com/satran/ips/draft-satran-NDT-Framing-00.txt

Julo

---

From: "Douglas Otis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 23:30:03 -0800

Julian,

This NDT technique closely resembles a header used for SCTP with the
exception of shared secrets that are not masked if the digest is CRC as
suggested.  SCTP has already established negotiations for a verification
tag, in addition, SCTP provides a standard means of bundling together with
assured frame alignment.  SCTP further solves problems associated with DoS,
spoofing, head of queue blocking, increased SACK, recovery, and
multi-homing.  This NDT technique used as a means of framing TCP will
require a portion of the application to be below the transport and thus
corrupt network layering.  SCTP can accomplish the same feature without
placing the application below the transport though use of the ability within
SCTP to send objects unordered within the transport allowing such objects to
appear as received within a shim.

I strongly recommend SCTP be considered as a solution for this feature
rather than disrupting existing TCP stacks to incorporate these changes for
framing.  It has become apparent there is a desire to keep a framing
interface for TCP proprietary whereas SCTP remains open.  Placing the
application below the transport would also represent a potential for
security problems depending on how the application communicates with this
new layer below TCP.  I would hope that just header structures are not seen
as complete solutions.  How these structures are used within the total
protocol must be included for there to be a coherent review.

Doug

Dear Colleagues:

I've recently submitted a draft including a different "No-Data-Touch"(NDT)
framer.
Unlike the current proposed NDT framer that has a "mistake" probability that
increases asymptotically (to 1) with the stream length the framer I am
suggesting has a very low and constant mistake probability and is thus safe
to use even in the absence of alignment or in the presence of
re-segmentation.

Julo

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