1996-04-11 - Re: Protocols at the Point of a Gun

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Message Hash: d27d8c3522ffa92a50bc5c630a10bc43259c1a72b9f59f6885b62abebdb628d2
Message ID: <199604111426.KAA20759@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <v02120d2bad91ecd377cc@[]>
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-11 19:46:39 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 03:46:39 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 03:46:39 +0800
To: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Subject: Re: Protocols at the Point of a Gun
In-Reply-To: <v02120d2bad91ecd377cc@[]>
Message-ID: <199604111426.KAA20759@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Lucky Green writes:
> There is one thing about the proposed minor flag addition to IP that I
> don't understand. [No, I am not surprised by this. Mandatory authorization
> to establish a connection and an "Internet Driver License", probably in the
> form or a smart card are coming].
> If my computer creates the IP packet, what is there to prevent me from
> modifying the value of the "Minor/Adult" flag at my leisure?

Nothing prevents you from doing that, not that there is any place to
put such a flag. Moreover, it is highly unclear what the semantics are
in general, or how an application would know about them, or what you
do in tunnelling such packets, or what it means in a TCP stream if
some packets are flagged and some aren't, etc, etc. The whole thing is
a crock of shit. (Normally, I wouldn't say that but I'm trying to
violate the CDA as often as possible these days.) Its yet another case
of idiots who don't know technology pretending that technical people
are magicians who can just do anything by waving a wand, and if we say
something can't be done it must mean that we are being stubborn or
some such. Reminds me of the train disaster section of "Atlas
Shrugged". Ah, well.