Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
bmonkman@netsecopen.org Fri, 11 February 2022 16:15 UTC
Return-Path: <bmonkman@netsecopen.org>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 745553A0CF0 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:15:41 -0800 (PST)
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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netsecopen-org.20210112.gappssmtp.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 rtFTs3fcR7Nw for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:15:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x836.google.com (mail-qt1-x836.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::836]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAC383A0D2F for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:15:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x836.google.com with SMTP id b5so9434429qtq.11 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:15:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netsecopen-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=M4DLbq9kPA4ULYvey6LnzGzrUQUxe8c5AQFGmeWTlKY=; b=oOaq5AeYvKk1OcElXgFovxZHC9jA0AzFNKq87NdNNn++OnIG6usd5YSMWaHdR8KmSD NUv2Xs+fc5acTMbXyEdAOtI2sVFh/S55STx2kc4RYen0cj3R/ypEFhnLeJ3izzsgwrbS hEN/J+WHRFrlg2PIcgFyFKjZUsI1IHqKqNPtkyZgehNhqfpDNf1E9W1E70Kd7SvCqLqw eQ14ba8tYxXPFOzjLnV8Ggutp3HWtztSOw2OvKD/BNll51xihxpIM7G0cZAQcXKRmkKU QzJSSLH73rV2uDkTJkffyzK39TDvSFBD7vVC9SM/uYZhZYP9RlsGursbqjYiloKlpHNq gQ5Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=M4DLbq9kPA4ULYvey6LnzGzrUQUxe8c5AQFGmeWTlKY=; b=KyUk3OMafSWLa/+UJYKlvUmM2HBU4TaXZRkZRHmlxG8DWpg3cQR+YUD55qU0Z+mmND KilDk3Qtnxl9TEMK47omNWGY53n+Lfrutmy+HTNk048oqTFTGBlPoL1UguqOI7VLk3KG a+syM4tIK7bS9B1WA0mBJLPw6sJIjyeVO1fZL/Cfx/o9Tp2xYP5TtQCj98RYHU+Vj4r3 eGbbCZ6wBklmwZqx2ST164fGqdqfo3ZyxPcixrZLy2DSYKPLGpn021sfG4DPWJ7rOTQv 5Y4L421BDC0WHkUrwq2omc+CyO3PTXZtIOrkkSf46quONWX/AYky4TSgct7yUAFOIY3R K8Sw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531QZ/yqqyu1N1ONMCWdbzgYFS/MFT18P3ajSz0kFJL9I0a4VFdu RfaSRJhJJfI8cQ3VZrselqlvEJG+lcR6Cw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwt007+k5yUwDffIWRdUGCShWe2IllPEJ/Pmdr2OYq/Wfdg6t8WE05+ptCctYdyoLAd/hwA/w==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:12:: with SMTP id x18mr1677388qtw.40.1644596133298; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:15:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP42TMNEU (c-98-235-212-118.hsd1.pa.comcast.net. [98.235.212.118]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h20sm5485358qtk.21.2022.02.11.08.15.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:15:32 -0800 (PST)
From: bmonkman@netsecopen.org
To: 'John C Klensin' <john-ietf@jck.com>, 'Stewart Bryant' <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, 'Scott Bradner' <sob@sobco.com>
Cc: bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, 'IETF' <ietf@ietf.org>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, bmwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance@ietf.org
References: <164386586568.20734.14136987065393258244@ietfa.amsl.com> <fdb1df79-3a53-ea53-8532-ffb8d2545996@eantc.de> <CAL0qLwaDu9U1Kj_GtgNEY6JWpJncyC-t=NYA_uwOHs8zZmCHpQ@mail.gmail.com> <01D0C656-F323-4A7A-BF5B-764D646E2CD8@sobco.com> <5AAFE998-739E-48DA-B82D-2FBCD5989E42@gmail.com> <23A0A262ECC84B5B369983ED@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <23A0A262ECC84B5B369983ED@PSB>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:15:31 -0500
Message-ID: <5dcf01d81f62$97c49ad0$c74dd070$@netsecopen.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQFYaDrYw2JEaAngRvd/cP5IEXwQBQFet+PUAXC1XZkBTRrloQLJXqKVAasLuNytSWzyMA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/vlYeE86M5jf28mGfa2TCB6AM8no>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:15:42 -0000
Thanks everyone for your input and comments. They are helpful to the authours. Brian -----Original Message----- From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 11:13 AM To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>; Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> Cc: bmwg-chairs@ietf.org; IETF <ietf@ietf.org>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; bmwg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance@ietf.org Subject: Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) --On Friday, February 11, 2022 12:22 +0000 Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 11 Feb 2022, at 12:08, Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote: >> >> I do not think it is useful to use SHOULD without specifically saying >> what the escape clause is - i.e. >> specifically say when its OK to not act as if it was a MUST > > Hi Scott > > The problem with that is it requires perfect foresight on the > exceptions. > > I have always taken SHOULD to mean that you MUST do this unless you > have a good reason not to do this and understand the consequences for > your system in its deployment environment. > > In other words I think we need to trust the engineer implementing the > system to apply good judgement when they ignore the MUST element of > the SHOULD. Stewart, As Scott probably remembers, I've advocated several times -- with the IESG, IAB, and with the RFC Editor -- for a rule that is a little more flexible than the one Scott suggests above but that treats "good judgment" differently. That suggestion has been something like the following: If SHOULD is used, then it must be accompanied by at least one of: (1) A general description of the character of the exceptions and/or in what areas exceptions are likely to arise. Examples are fine but, except in plausible and rare cases, not enumerated lists. (2) A statement about what should be done, or what the considerations are, if the "SHOULD" requirement is not met. (3) A statement about why it is not a MUST. The first option was not just because of your "perfect foresight" comment above but because attempts to enumerate all cases can easily lead into "what is not explicitly forbidden is permitted" thinking which is never good for standards. And, especially if there is any ambiguity, all three need to be read through the lens of the original intended interpretation of the Robustness Principle. I have no opinion about what should be done for the case of this particular specification but, because this is not the first time a problem like this has arisen _and_ because there have occasionally been objections from within the IESG to documents that discuss what to do if an implementation does not follow a given specification, I would encourage the IESG and the community to think about the issue more broadly. john
- [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-b… Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… Carsten Rossenhoevel
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… Scott Bradner
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… Scott Bradner
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… Michael Richardson
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… John C Klensin
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… bmonkman
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… Scott Bradner
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… Barry Leiba
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… Michael Richardson
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… John C Klensin
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… John C Klensin