Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-02 comments

At 08:12 PM 7/9/2008, Thomson, Martin wrote:
>   {S} Next paragraph: Justification for expiry needs to include 
> security.  This is the primary use, particularly where references 
> use the "possession" model.  Expiry limits the time that accidental 
> leaking of a URI causes.  (from a requirements perspective I tend 
> towards a MUST use, but would be happy with SHOULD use and MUST 
> implement - c.f. HELD design).  I have another comment on Section 4 
> on this topic.

I have an issue with this statement about the draft.

SHOULD or MUST "use" is not up to a requirements document, I don't 
believe.  Protocol documents talk about the hazards of not enabling a 
function or capability, Requirements documents need to MUST virtually 
everything, otherwise the document is ambiguous.  Requirements 
documents are specifically for protocol designers, not for 
education.  The comment about "SHOULD use" is pointless unless it 
MUST be implemented, which is towards the coming standards track RFC authors.

I think that is confusing the point of a requirements document (i.e. 
it's for protocol authors).  Protocol documents have MUSTs and 
SHOULDs, which are towards implementors.  SHOULD need to always have 
a legitimate reason to ignore why a SHOULD is not created within a 
protocol and implemented by coders.

Therefore, I believe the "SHOULD use" point trying to be made here 
needs to be moved into the Intro section, to give another use-case or 
to give further justification for this protocol (to-be) to be designed.

my 1.75 cents

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv