IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] [saag] towards using of MUST-/SHOULD+/SHOULD- in draft-ietf-autonomic-control-plane-24

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 27 June 2020 01:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7E53A081B; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Om0Q-aw544Ye; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B09003A07C0; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21E838995; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 21:12:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id B53N7CRMATJJ; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 21:12:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99FD538991; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 21:12:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24DDE8D; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 21:15:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, anima@ietf.org, Ben Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, saag@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20200626220847.GX3100@localhost>
References: <20200624023407.GA41244@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <C71BDB46-A15A-48EC-BC4D-68CA9A7C1DFB@vigilsec.com> <14352.1593208951@localhost> <20200626220847.GX3100@localhost>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 21:15:19 -0400
Message-ID: <30682.1593220519@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/fxJeiBiN6ODbvvavhjBFMJXdJnQ>
Subject: Re: [Anima] [saag] towards using of MUST-/SHOULD+/SHOULD- in draft-ietf-autonomic-control-plane-24
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 01:15:26 -0000

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
    > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 06:02:31PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >> I tried to convince Toerless to go with the MUST-/SHOULD+/SHOULD-
    >> terminology from IPsecME's RFC8247.
    >>
    >> It would be nice if SAAG lifted section 1.1 into a BCP14-like
    >> document, as I think that it has widespread applicability throughout
    >> documents that want to establish interoperable crypto.

    > Is there are reason that RFC8247's {MUST,SHOULD}[-+] wouldn't be
    > generally applicable beyond crypto?  The -/+ thing is about pithily
    > indicating likelihood of future downgrade/upgrade of the requirement/
    > recommendation -- seems generally applicable to me.

    > So.. just update RFC2119.

1) So, BCPs can point to multiple documents.
   BCP14 actually is RFC2119 and RFC8174 now, so we can add a third document if
   desired. That is, it's cheaper to not spin 2119.

2) I'm not claiming others won't use it, I just don't know if they will.
   Crypto progresses... what other things do that in the same way?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email