IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-11

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 21 December 2012 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F6E521F8802; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:06:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RjQfGZwdBglx; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:06:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og124.obsmtp.com (exprod7og124.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B49321F86A4; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:06:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob124.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUNSJBq9xiSuHISy1FgkVyq8g2p1bv2hs@postini.com; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:06:34 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0511B81E8; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:06:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43759190052; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:06:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:06:30 -0800
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-11
Thread-Index: AQHN3i33Q3+/pWXDrEC14WiRxtRL+pgjvKCAgAAbrICAABXLgIAABe6A
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:06:30 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630747441AF5@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <BE996F07-CFB7-47F5-8B17-FA651C294FA3@nostrum.com> <F2B120E98374B2448745C1117BDA1854238F281F@BLRKECMBX23.ad.infosys.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307474418FF@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <E1A0312B-2E9A-4FD6-AAAA-8AE03AE4B965@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1A0312B-2E9A-4FD6-AAAA-8AE03AE4B965@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <051271295785B447A3D42540E88098E3@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>, Bharat Joshi <bharat_joshi@infosys.com>, RAMAKRISHNADTV <RAMAKRISHNADTV@infosys.com>, "draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption.all@tools.ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org List" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-11
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:06:36 -0000

On Dec 21, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> As I responded separately to Ramakrishna, is the SHOULD use 4030 language a new requirement specific to this draft? Or is it just describing requirements in 3046 or elsewhere?

I suppose the authors should really answer this, but I was curious as well, and went looking.   I think RFC4030 should have updated RFC3046 to add this as a security consideration, but it did not.   However, e.g. RFC4243, RFC5010 and RFC5107 do add a similar requirement to their security considerations section, so it's probably fair to say that this has been informally adopted as appropriate practice for security considerations sections.   

Perhaps we should adopt the practice more formally... :)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email