Re: [Gen-art] GenART post-telechat comment on draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-08

Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Wed, 07 September 2016 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.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 25D8412B1D1; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 08:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.528
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=qti.qualcomm.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 GmKYjwrZxUAq; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 08:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD95D12B209; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 08:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1473262039; x=1504798039; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version; bh=x4+xxqnoI8Hidlq9mMqaBTmTrz1j+JugnyE2Fz9s8Yw=; b=zfhE/FCedPB8eYB3+z102zRmvmKdtoZRosOULN3EM1vM7/343D1YeFmP m3Yr3M0X7eSdavihkjx8KqoIFDQWbyjvd8xt+8g9YAB6wcwYU7nZSs5ZE pgRt5n8OFtQzrO418UOXRx8eoAqY0Anh4rcDilcB0rEF7gxesWeuqtiih g=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,296,1470726000"; d="scan'208,217";a="222524766"
Received: from unknown (HELO Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com) ([10.53.140.108]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 07 Sep 2016 08:27:19 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5700,7163,8281"; a="1267962939"
Received: from nasanexm01f.na.qualcomm.com ([10.85.0.32]) by Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 07 Sep 2016 08:27:18 -0700
Received: from [10.64.128.83] (10.80.80.8) by NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 08:27:16 -0700
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 10:27:12 -0500
Message-ID: <38B980BF-5391-4E5E-BF5A-13797A095AC1@qti.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <66a3884d-17c3-8b94-7252-526c231a6cb6@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <6ECD9A3A-0D63-421B-953D-A516D773CCBA@qti.qualcomm.com> <66a3884d-17c3-8b94-7252-526c231a6cb6@cs.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_9828B6DB-BFB4-4A8E-832B-6BC6AD33280E_="
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.5r5260)
X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8]
X-ClientProxiedBy: NASANEXM01B.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.82) To NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/aSn6a0UDzeQPEz_sztMt1hTom-s>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility.all@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, tram@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] GenART post-telechat comment on draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 15:27:23 -0000

Stephen,

As per my reply to Suresh: It is often the case that the gratuitous use 
of "MUST"s hides ambiguities in meaning that need to be fixed anyway.

And for the sake of keeping things the same as they were when I was on 
the IESG, I say to you, with great affection:

:-b

pr

On 7 Sep 2016, at 2:24, Stephen Farrell wrote:

>
> Hi Pete,
>
> On 06/09/16 16:55, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> However, I believe Suresh was incorrect in suggesting the first 
>> "MUST",
>> and it should be removed. There is no harm being prevented here. "If 
>> a
>> client wants X, it MUST send Y" is absolutely no different 
>> protocol-wise
>> from "If a client wants X, it will send Y". The "MUST" is a misuse. I
>> believe that this change should be undone before publication.
>
> This is something we rehearsed at length and fairly
> regularly (if only occasionally) when one Mr. Resnick
> was on the IESG:-)
>
> My impression of those discussions is that we ended
> up with a draw: Pete continues to not like when such
> gratuitous MUST statements are included, and is strictly
> correct that they aren't needed. However, authors do do
> that and the sky does not fall in, so others (incl. me)
> feel that the IESG badgering authors on this topic is
> counter-productive.
>
> IOW, I don't think the change needs to be undone. But
> I don't care if that happens or not in this case.
>
> If the IESG were to extrapolate from that to suggesting
> that Pete's preferred approach MUST be followed, then
> I would have a problem with that. (But I hope we're not
> going there:-)
>
> S.
>


-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478