IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Sat, 27 June 2020 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
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 B87CB3A098C; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 20:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
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 kmK04TAA918v; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 20:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from black.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (black.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7CDE3A097F; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 20:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5867E14A2; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 03:06:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a37.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-19-6.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.19.6]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E9EB47E10FA; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 03:06:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a37.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.8); Sat, 27 Jun 2020 03:06:37 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Robust-Cooing: 3b4d6dea220e19b7_1593227197341_2479348239
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1593227197341:3968239992
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1593227197341
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a37.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a37.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5610B2B2E; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 20:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=TeAOYnjQ+LfNgP 0rg6wD32hlTeM=; b=JILNocdWuDCvUVd4E0OaEdFVzJSJpurs69E/Pr8PH9m/8p ZkHs40RHqFCenOF2RyyzhAynEiPcU2SRDCXqA3k47gOb3T7HoGEZSRFhcVgIROaf A2HXFw1DnPB7peYuipo8ZNn9YWqcngdBbGIazg6Y+nyYlXVA2gjcN6oFlkoOY=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a37.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8F66B2B34; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 20:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 22:06:24 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a37
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, anima@ietf.org, Ben Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, saag@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200627030622.GZ3100@localhost>
References: <20200624023407.GA41244@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <C71BDB46-A15A-48EC-BC4D-68CA9A7C1DFB@vigilsec.com> <14352.1593208951@localhost> <20200626220847.GX3100@localhost> <30682.1593220519@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <30682.1593220519@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudelvddgieekucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjfgesthdtredttdervdenucfhrhhomheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefftdektefhueetveeigfefgeejteejvdfhhefgvddtfeeujeehleeguefhgffhgfenucfkphepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopehlohgtrghlhhhoshhtpdhinhgvthepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfedprhgvthhurhhnqdhprghthheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmpdhnrhgtphhtthhopehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhm
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/kFOshy5GZhDfTKwGp6bxbVfq6eE>
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 03:06:41 -0000

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:15:19PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 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.

Sure.  Plus, RFC2119 is iconic, and used far and wide outside the IETF.

> 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?

Any time we have a migration from one [sub]protocol to a newer one and
need to retain support for the old one for a while, we will need
something like SHOULD-.  I agree this comes up most often in the context
of cryptographic algorithms.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email