Re: [Anima] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-28: (with COMMENT)

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

{fixing quoting. I had no idea what Alvaro wanted to say otherwise}

Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
    alvaro> (3) s/The serialNumber fields is defined in [RFC5280], and is a
    alvaro> SHOULD field in [IDevID]./The serialNumber field is defined in [RFC5280], and is a
    alvaro> recommended field in [IDevID]. Note that SHOULD is not used
    alvaro> properly here because it does not have a Normative quality (as it
    alvaro> refers to the other document). I'm assuming that the replacement
    alvaro> is "recommended" (per rfc2119), but it may be "required".

    mcr> 802.1AR says it is SHOULD. We need to increase this to MUST.
    mcr> RECOMMENDED is a synonym for SHOULD according to 2119.
    mcr> REQUIRED is a synonym for MUST, so if I changed it to REQUIRED then it would
    mcr> still be a problem according to your thinking...?

    mcr> So I could reword as:

    mcr> IDevID certificates for use with this protocol are REQUIRED to
    mcr> include the "serialNumber" attribute with the device's unique
    mcr> serial number (from [IDevID] section 7.2.8, and [RFC5280] section
    mcr> 4.1.2.4's list of standard attributes).

    mcr> which might be an easier read. Please let me know if I am mis-understanding
    mcr> you.

    alvaro> The original text sounded as if you were characterizing the field
    alvaro> specified in rfc5280.

    alvaro> The new text specifies that the serialNumber MUST be there.  If that is
    alvaro> what you meant from the start, then I’m ok with it. :-)

So you prefer the reworded text, and I will use that in -29.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-