Subject: [tcpm] IANA TCP options registry ... -- Re: [IANA #282277] General Request for Assignments (tcp-parameters)

From: RFC Editor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:28:37 -0700

Greetings,

We did not recgonize the document as a request for publication as an
Independent Submission because we thought the reqeust was to the IESG,
as the message below indicates "IESG, this is a formal request for
approval and publication." 

We apologize for the confusion and delay.  Please let us know if you
have any questions.

Thank you.

RFC Editor

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:35:22 -0400
From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
To: RFC Editor <[email-masked]>
CC: TCP Modifications WG <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] IANA TCP options registry ... 

On 4/1/10 1:23 PM, RFC Editor wrote:

> Unfortunately, we did not recognize the mail received on 1 March as a
> request to consider<draft-simpson-tcpct-00.txt>  for publication as
> an Independent Submission, as we did not see a particular request for
> for the RFC Editor.  Once clarified, the document was processed as
> described in RFC 4846.
>                                                                                                                                  
Pardon my unclear language in my first sentence of March 1st:                                                                                                                                   
# "this is a formal request for approval and publication." 

On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:04:59PM -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Amanda Baber via RT wrote:
>> This registry requires IESG Approval or Standards Action, so we can't take 
>> any action yet. Let us know when your draft has been posted, and we'll ask 
>> the IESG to review it and approve the assignments. 
> IESG, this is a formal request for approval and publication.  In the
> usual tradition (of T/TCP, etc), I'm not interested in Standards Action
> at this time.  This is not the product of a working group.
>
> 	Title		: TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)
> 	Author(s)	: W. Simpson
> 	Filename	: draft-simpson-tcpct-00.txt
> 	Pages		: 34
> 	Date		: 2010-2-26
> 	
>    TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT) deter spoofing of connections and
>    prevent resource exhaustion, eliminating Responder (server) state
>    during the initial handshake.  The Initiator (client) has sole
>    responsibility for ensuring required delays between connections.  The
>    cookie exchange may carry data, limited to inhibit amplification and
>    reflection denial of service attacks.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-simpson-tcpct-00.txt
>
>
>> Please note that we can't guarantee that these numbers won't be assigned 
>> in the interim.
>>
> We chose them after examining tcpdump repositories and testing.
>
> TCPM scuttlebutt has Cisco using 33 (without reservation).  The official
> experimental numbers 253-254 were unusable over the Internet for testing,
> as those have been compromised by other shipping products (Cisco and
> some "middlebox discovery" vendor or two).
>
> So, we had to decide on a pair of numbers sooner rather than later!
>
> There are now many systems running this code.
>
>
>> On Wed Nov 25 09:22:31 2009, [email-masked] wrote:
>>> Contact Name :
>>> William Allen Simpson
>>>
>>> Contact Email :
>>> [email-masked]
>>>
>>> Type of Assignment :
>>> 31 TCP Cookie Extension (variable length)
>>> 32 TCP Time Stamp Extension
>>>    (3)
>>>
> Here's the draft's IANA Considerations, slightly more formal names:
>
>    TCP Cookie Option
>    Kind: 31
>    Length: variable.
>
>    TCP Timestamps Extended Option
>    Kind: 32
>    Length: 3.
>
>
>>> Registry :
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/
>>>