RE: subscriber mib issue

OK thanks. More later today.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 19:24
To: Woundy, Richard; 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'
Cc: Ipcdn (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] subscriber mib issue



oops. yes, thanks - the sections were renumbered and I thought I'd checked this, but obviously not. It should be 3.4, as Rich notes.

- Wilson


-------------- Original message -------------- 

> Bert, 
> 
> I am pretty sure that this reference is supposed to be to the section 
> entitled "Filtering and the Tiny Fragment Attack". For version -15, 
> "Filtering and the Tiny Fragment Attack" is section 3.4. 
> 
> The original text in the drafts, prior to updates in version -15, is: 
> 
> The filtering mechanism defined here can be defeated through the 
> "tiny fragment" and "overlapping fragment" attacks if the 
> recommendations in section 2.2.6 are omitted. See [RFC1858] and 
> [RFC3128] for discussion of these attacks. 
> 
> Version -06 of the draft points to the section entitled "Filtering and the 
> Tiny Fragment Attack", 
> . In 
> versions -07 to -14, this ! text points to section 2.2.6, but that section no 
> longer exists. In version -15, the revised text points to section 3.2.6, but 
> that section also does not exist. 
> 
> Note that the wording in the original text, "See [RFC1858] and [RFC3128] for 
> discussion of these attacks", is a direct reference to the contents of the 
> "Filtering and the Tiny Fragment Attack" section. 
> 
> Wilson, can you confirm? 
> 
> -- Rich 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 8:26 AM 
> To: Ipcdn (E-mail) 
> Subject: [ipcdn] subscriber mib issue 
> 
> 
> IESG raised this one: 
> 
> Allison Mankin: 
> Discuss: 
> [2004-09-26] The document states: 
> Effective network filtering of TCP traffic requires that implemento! rs 
> MUST follow the recommendations in section 3.2.6. 
> But there is no section 3.2.6 here. MUST must be clear. 
> 
> Ooopss. I should have seen that. 
> Not even sure we can just replace that with a single ptr to one other 
> (sub)section, can we. ANyway, would be good to have a response ASAP. 
> 
> Bert 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> IPCDN mailing list 
> [email protected] 
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn