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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 26 January 2017 19:27 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 9A78B1299A7 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:09 -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 zcnadeK3hOre for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x235.google.com (mail-qt0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::235]) (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 5AFFE1299A4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x235.google.com with SMTP id x49so91862111qtc.2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:07 -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=yhUSgd+YNPnWm+6I6yUwArKW77qmdQgo0WLcKiUJCMs=; b=ezzTO9EfzCsUCASoG6OIqsl5F9IMbpPL2rSin90Y1cgw0j0UiMJW18g5o15Gqzoc7R 9KzggzkyidHOOF3iBQIy+OiAbfhYTOVaDqJo43NznRKIhpZpMFYskyaU+CacRgR2V4Hy HhcMzvFZrzHONkLgl/HcevMYdBeZjkgJqCrItX35iJs6n8CAKBKCTGBpMIES+262qV78 Jnk+u4yC/gjXftTbmf8sbgCBXOI3nF1BH9quUXe1zMwuYkWKS1XnOlM/sLRf6DmGIftz 7mVCpG4LPFt1Ovq5OFuv63gP5HnVA4RLM64/78Ljgbpq5Dg4Pcn3BeawIDI66L48cjeU 7XpA==
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=yhUSgd+YNPnWm+6I6yUwArKW77qmdQgo0WLcKiUJCMs=; b=WwjPyxrNnFq/cioBtgCv2GUFKlSQl+xJjxSCE3M9dFScgdCRecv7gQFTuslUb6UE1p fo5qt/ra5B/e1mRtgSUYnmXa+Wn1NCAWedFLHv06gAYWoWfE9vQLlTu09+XVa56iuy2o Ji39yA7W0389EwN6Xbk/srSXCg6uYJTs5L51iGHEzZmKbb0dMjAEOTsQVP1HzvrGMpfx Qq1kGIg/rA77ExzIMDXcyvEWiV4ndy0QzaL6tNN/bZnk7YCOOCdbOOSQWVs8nyYtex1e MK7DZNqsYTPStQK6o3dPVmYx6UuJZP+7lQeiVup5TQe3/bc8CJXX2LcRAItG/CqmIYSQ XUGA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJZMCaT5f2AnEYQBFYMecPfA7IftNKGb59xiRP7oOzJgaf3e9K5OqmCzwfQKLZ1mA==
X-Received: by 10.237.62.68 with SMTP id m4mr4177076qtf.171.1485458826205; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.228] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d186sm2013056qka.7.2017.01.26.11.27.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <519FB5EF-52B0-4DEA-B670-2D2593C3FB66@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A4649E0F-9747-44AF-9D5B-8AECE3166C47"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:27:02 -0500
In-Reply-To: <367DE531-AF9C-40A3-8B1F-5F595D804023@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> <C099032E-F538-43AD-970F-F71A1A9E15D8@fugue.com> <367DE531-AF9C-40A3-8B1F-5F595D804023@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/gK6os5jMp8dt5SwLe9G-lw4yb4U>
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 19:27:09 -0000

On Jan 26, 2017, at 1:58 PM, jouni.nospam <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 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.

Okay, I see your point.   But suppose the document were changed so that rather than "updating" the document as you suggest, it simply referenced the sections in question and then made the SHOULDs into MUSTs that way?   Wouldn't that mean "implementations of this extension MUST," and wouldn't that be perfectly reasonable?