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

"jouni.nospam" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Thu, 26 January 2017 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 DC031129971; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:58:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 l2ZmZAeFRsIZ; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:58:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x242.google.com (mail-pf0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::242]) (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 3ECE612996D; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:58:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id 19so16930738pfo.3; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:58:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=k3LRGTlbFZkGJypQcuUz7nLs+8K6DtWywgSIkfuyeuo=; b=WukSQ8PN78KNDxBOIHG9BOeEhdDh/+CVN0i1DLdP4MuLPYSx/2hGC3YzP13UiEHzpV gUr//b6TRgula8ZaNnm4kW0pit6DhsiQ2er+q2QPRVb2L1xC1m+sdlqxlG4Hp9iU0Ibf jLwzP8PVOeIbd5GEtYAGkTw4GyiZx8AG90cAskqhv3mJGpLsUe2EHRublsSPYJAOhAFu HchboA71qdY+L9g9yUx38cZKRF4qnF9ly1L7Cki4fAqs/o70fLS9vNZd4quDTL7BIM1z Yy3FoItJ3HhxiQqT2Y7u9xf7m0PZdaDfIRaAnlM1Mzkz3HoxS6kOd9eorx+BhAlC2wqm OwiQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=k3LRGTlbFZkGJypQcuUz7nLs+8K6DtWywgSIkfuyeuo=; b=JNV3D8aLugnh+5C8rPfANwi/kZ0/XKDCiwr2j3sDFoSmXRDj3V1MiOgUM4MEPt7b5r VLe4IRdDMcyUsrAcqdEXtTMK8xIfZKI4B0n/oOTuL8C9sA2CImoR3OBjbzmzFpiHt2bZ 8br/TFVbbyCZuY7eLzbzn6Gt7RlbJ4A/Txt9RjmkB5Boz9swb9P/TrUyFQugUMj8n0G5 jTCVbsiT/W8aI8zTKteP0I4giEwCVsrcVbO5zZS/Vx5YELhmWkuo+SDJxp+RPZGM1pXl 4MqNosSYCKMnCrK/37YYdV5YPdtyKswN5sM0dQHsWwRdecqogn4ZhUQQBVeTN4KNqc6d v02A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXK25YrBUI2t0+7n1ZVZx7SdxqXTs4XM1qyOhRzs5kK2xd02JKdb7/2C/oNtjOPENg==
X-Received: by 10.99.53.195 with SMTP id c186mr4740712pga.24.1485457114833; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:58:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.89.94] ([216.31.219.19]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s64sm5230235pfe.27.2017.01.26.10.58.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:58:33 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: "jouni.nospam" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C099032E-F538-43AD-970F-F71A1A9E15D8@fugue.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:58:32 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <367DE531-AF9C-40A3-8B1F-5F595D804023@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> <C099032E-F538-43AD-970F-F71A1A9E15D8@fugue.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/K51NTMVYCZxXFd85-Wbp4hekBWc>
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 18:58:37 -0000

> On Jan 26, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>; wrote:
> 
> 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?

No. But in this case there are pieces of text that change specific places in the original document from SHOULDs to MUSTs, musts to MUSTs, and adds few pieces of new stuff, etc. Now how that in not updating? Changes or “extensions” like that would be nice to follow from the base document.

- Jouni