Re: [core] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-12: (with COMMENT)

Christian Amsüss <> Sun, 18 July 2021 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C443A0A71; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 13:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9B-Pku-vjBja; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 13:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E51B3A0A66; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 13:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13D104018E; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 22:41:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:a800:ff:fede:b1bf]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F491D0; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 22:41:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D2749148; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 22:41:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (nullmailer pid 2669061 invoked by uid 1000); Sun, 18 Jul 2021 20:41:44 -0000
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 22:41:44 +0200
From: Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ams=FCss?= <>
To: Murray Kucherawy <>
Cc: The IESG <>,,,
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="USuXXIKuxDd/z2nJ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [core] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-12: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 20:41:59 -0000

Hello Murray,

thanks for your input on echo-request-tag, and apologies for the delay
in processing them to completion.

Please see [1] for a few general comments; here's the response to your
particular comments:

> There are several SHOULDs (e.g., near the top of page 8, and again at
> the end of Section 2.3) that left me wondering why an implementer
> would do something other than what it says.  Since SHOULD offers a
> choice, some advice would be helpful here.  Otherwise, maybe those
> ought to be MUSTs.  I suggest giving them all a once-over to see if
> any such advice would be helpful to include.

Some categories of SHOULDs were identified that did not warrant any

* "You can do it differently and it wouldn't be wrong just weird (but
  maybe you have good reasons we don't understand)": eg. 'MUST NOT
  process [...] further and SHOULD send a 4.01 Unauthorized'. If the
  application has a successful code in a content format that indicates
  "try again with whatever I'm providing you here", that's technically
  fine and won't break things (which'd justify a MUST). But it's not
  like we can give good reasons to do that other than "someone decided
  to do it differently in that API", so there's nothing good to say.

* "If you have anything better, be my guest": In some places, there is
  no current alternative but no reason to rule them out either. It's
  unlikely there'll be an "Echo 2.0" that does the same just different,
  but a more complex mechanism that provides freshness as bycatch would
  be a viable option in some places.

For others (eg. SHOULD use preemptive values, pointing to privacy
considerations), options were given; one SHOULD is indeed a MUST
(HTTP-to-CoAP proxies) as there's no other viable option.

Best regards


This may seem a bit weird, but that's okay, because it is weird.
  -- perldata(1) about perl variables