Re: [dhcwg] [Int-dir] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security-02

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 26 January 2017 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910DC12997E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:37:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.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 v3Wju_LjDClh for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:37:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x236.google.com (mail-qt0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::236]) (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 65860129972 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:37:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x236.google.com with SMTP id w20so29376034qtb.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:37:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=U1zyNx1z2Mfc4fGygZL9pXhANg63kmSpZIgSSCHAS8A=; b=sYKPfgILzdSBD9OqZMDTVClCFuXVu56DZ4j7Xa+ceN2byVQ93jJq8T1/xL2BCjrtLR qxN41JDe4ASB61yuiYfsDeeTlCbXaIam8aWEtX4NbeREvyaNcOr4BrJ7V4CY/ZJpWIyg bn4LAzMXUjnXQWj4Xa0nAxFrPmow/zKCnlEeLvjQOGCCnis14xyM512ehBm3Jh7QG+Pj rsRe/+Oo4gX/aEol05uUF1Od5PLfygbhqmMy/inufppOmIP8nApqUIcEAcVBMXKabeF8 iOhQFnOyIlxBzJoZUP/TC6r/UYGLk1ngMaXiaft+yH1ft/tzXZ6LZGthWeSmGqCz8Yk1 ElGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=U1zyNx1z2Mfc4fGygZL9pXhANg63kmSpZIgSSCHAS8A=; b=kLmQ3BXXcm3Lfz3LqKZqvedXtiwFQMReQXWhe8JAmEZKy0bT6/kWl91HtOgUr4ySY/ K7F+zdexS4jqxhVrxa25p1G8vFTmWIA6AhUpbhHUvJBW2qgKfrEjXFBBN58NxmjJRFJi J+DIv65yhKxvnKTGQdbCYQ7XVM0OHXdShosGssLED5GB4K4U3kegR9ex4NcxAUkMUFqk jpmqJICyK08sdzc5UPCFyrFZFGJWHLv+MLX2YAnuGVhGXdOokwU7Nrib6jNnNEZYyWS4 8k/BqjZgFI8yVCtCGWFRQVApCjaaDvxxJfplLeln83R9sHkcU54sZe08Af8+pL7nDpG8 TnKw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKBP+UDbNWNwdwvPZw+lbZIyuqGwZG6ZCcg4jJ9NpbJthrbfn4qr4x4sCyZS5F/Sg==
X-Received: by 10.200.48.44 with SMTP id f41mr4098377qte.153.1485455822223; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:37:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.228] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j129sm1861039qkd.47.2017.01.26.10.37.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:37:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <C099032E-F538-43AD-970F-F71A1A9E15D8@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3C878D77-1F36-4C34-B434-B02066DB4B48"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:36:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: <B3CE8C9D-C20C-4FAB-9054-0F09B2B87F63@gmail.com>
To: "jouni.nospam" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
References: <148541310715.6205.3276873953603821357.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <ff898bc0-81ce-7598-c3f3-2e114d30df30@gmail.com> <e996599692ff4584b8ace30a36ea6881@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <B3CE8C9D-C20C-4FAB-9054-0F09B2B87F63@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/2ZWEnSFvG5T5q5J5_3EMRMPw-KA>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "int-dir@ietf.org" <int-dir@ietf.org>, Jouni Korhonen <jounikor@gmail.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security.all@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [Int-dir] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security-02
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:37:06 -0000

On Jan 26, 2017, at 1:25 PM, jouni.nospam <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>; wrote:
> Hmm.. I really do not like specification “games” like this. If you cannot justify a MUST into RFC3315bis, then trying to circumvent the fact in another document (that does not update the RFC3315 or RFC3315bis) should not be a Standards Track document. I could accept this as a BCP or a like.

Hm, then you are saying that every extension ever done to a protocol that, if it contains MUSTs, MUST update that protocol, even if implementations that support the extension can interoperate with implementations that do not and vice versa.   What's your basis for this?