Subject: AD review for TCP extensions draft

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:02:18 -0400 (EDT)

Hi.  Hi.  If you are going to use IESG approval as an IANA policy
please give guidance to the IESG on when this approval should be
given. I'd argue that part of the guidance should be that normally the
IESG only approves an assignment in conjunction with a standards track
RFC.  My personal preference is that you use standards action rather
than IESG approval.  I'm OK though if you allow IESG approval and give
factors the IESG should consider.  For example, is the IESG to
evaluate whether the extension is a good idea, or is it simply to
shepherd the small namespace?

In the security considerations section please also note that downgrade
attacks can be solved by having extensions sign/MAC the set of offered
extensions.

These are both minor; I'm going to start a last call on the document.
Please do not send in an updated revision until the last call
concludes.

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:16:48 -0400 (EDT)

Sam raised two issues during AD review, both of which must be resolved
before the document can be approved.  So far, I haven't seen comments on
either...

> shepherd the small namespace?

Speaking as an individual, I'm also inclined to prefer Standards Action or
at least IETF Consensus.

> attacks can be solved by having extensions sign/MAC the set of offered

Would someone like to propose text to this effect?

-- Jeff