sorry, but the links do not work.
On Jun 25, 2009, at 11:28 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hello, folks, > > In February this year the UK CPNI published the document "Security > Assessment of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)" (available at: > http://www.cpni.gov.uk/Docs/tn-03-09-security-assessment-TCP.pdf) > > Earlier this year we published an IETF Internet-Draft version of this > document (available at: > http://www.gont.com.ar/drafts/tcp-security/draft-gont-tcp-security-00.txt) > in the hope of having the IETF further work on the TCP security > paper UK > CPNI had published. > > My personal take (possibly biased, since I am the document author) > is that this document has been the result of a lot of work (including > the work of the many peple that reviewed the CPNI version of the > document), and that the IETF should take this chance to work and > publish > something on the subject. > > The chairs of the TCPM Working Group of the IETF are currently polling > the WG for input about this document. It would be great if you could > voice your opinion about whether the TCPM should take this document > on, > and also whether you would be willing to review this document. (Bellow > you'll find a copy of the TCPM chairs' poll) > > Please send your comments to [email protected] (and please CC me). > > Thanks! > > Kind regards, > Fernando > > > > > - -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [tcpm] poll for adopting draft-gont-tcp-security > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:25:04 -0500 > From: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon] <[email protected]> > To: tcpm Extensions WG <[email protected]> > > TCPMers, there was a thread a while ago about working on > draft-gont-tcp-security in this working group that didn't > conclusively give us a feeling one way or other: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04489.html > > Basically, my understanding is that there are at least a > handful of people in the WG that think it should be done > here as a WG item (more likely for Informational rather > than BCP), and there are also some expressed opinions on > why it shouldn't. > > Given the raw size of the document, if the WG intends to > take this document on, then we need some people to clearly > commit to putting cycles into review and contributions to > the document. Since it is quite large, and to my knowledge, > there hasn't been a specific technical review of the content > on this list, but just discussions about if the idea in > general is a good or bad thing, we still need to know if > people are willing to invest their time and energy in this. > > Please let us know if there is traction for this in the > near term, and/or we can also discuss it in Stockholm. > > - --------------------------- > Wes Eddy > Network & Systems Architect > Verizon FNS / NASA GRC > Office: (216) 433-6682 > - --------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > > iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJKRE58AAoJEJbuqe/Qdv/xCPoH/AhdvNcTejJqoOE1J/gDc2Yc > Iw+GIUgW73sWBuh0ib5oQxv85tvEjQzLOpQtNPdX6ljm96A7ufl3uzB6DBzj3JoF > O3mqRWf/yFgWxNA7Kmv/FFPf271CUHpnxbnoYBGSeHKb78lS3WnLJukW8F2l+FPl > 2QZJp0wn6/g2TJFgWoIHtrbHovHboZQtopzfyJWirzVeL+3dGinden3IH6HKDth/ > t+0kyxlN07sBQDqebNvif6nxf4xU7kPdUap4i00EKhH5WTr49XDD46E1sP9d695i > MhW1lhZ1jeVkjz/MycuotSKXN/JIiFM6NV5i3vm5vnOkgAjMou7iEULdG/0Xqn8= > =/HE4 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
