Re: [Hipsec] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Julien,

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Julien Laganier <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Spencer,
>
> I just realized looking at the IESG record for the draft that I didn't
> answer your comment, sorry.
>
> I don't remember how we ended up with writing this as a SHOULD NOT
> (e.g., as opposed to a MUST NOT),  but at least the SHOULD NOT does
> not negatively affect interoperability since, at the end of the day,
> the registrar has the final word, whether it decides to grant a
> lifetime that's in the advertised interval, or grant the out-of-bound
> lifetime that was requested, and the granted lifetime value is
> communicated over to the requester in the REG_RESPONSE.


Thanks for the feedback!

Spencer


> --julien
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Spencer Dawkins
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.
> html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This bis draft was an improvement. I did have one question.
> >
> > I'm trying to visualize why
> >
> >    The registrar indicates the minimum and maximum registration lifetime
> >    that it is willing to offer to a requester.  A requester SHOULD NOT
> >    request registration with lifetime greater than the maximum
> >    registration lifetime or smaller than the minimum registration
> >    lifetime.
> >
> > is a SHOULD NOT - why would a requester choose to disregard the SHOULD
> > and send a request registration with (for example) a lifetime greater
> > than the maximum registration lifetime?
> >
> > Is the intention for the requester to allow this, and then (for example)
> > cap the lifetime at the maximum registration lifetime? Or is something
> > else supposed to happen?
> >
> > Whatever the intention is, it might be helpful to provide an explanation
> > about that.
> >
> >
>