IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 21 December 2012 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 07F1221F874E; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:37:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.492
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 UN6QhA2-z0og; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:37:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BE4B21F872C; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:37:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.14] (cpe-76-187-92-156.tx.res.rr.com [76.187.92.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qBLGb8tK002567 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:37:09 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630747441AF5@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:37:10 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1D859D9D-D1F5-4AD4-855E-9D193A7084B2@nostrum.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> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630747441AF5@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 76.187.92.156 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
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 16:37:16 -0000

On Dec 21, 2012, at 10:06 AM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> 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... :)

Pending the authors' comments, it sounds like it's good as is. (Assuming that "adopt[ing] the practice more formally" isn't _this_ draft's problem :-)  )

>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email