Re: [I18ndir] Secdir last call review of draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-05

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 04 September 2019 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88DC81208DB for <i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 09:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 eV9_Uzthhq41 for <i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 09:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBD521200FD for <i18ndir@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 09:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46NpjL2yGhzFj5; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 18:11:34 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1567613494; bh=J2nrX6amFb01XyNkN87XqgaJQJRPzAtKmpzPg4iJJds=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=WOeHqmqTorNYN2HBqW1nzrCXNQn2iXQwrZLr5Do8p7TiKy6ftf3DA5N42Hw+axswd h7npK1btTpt24oFS9kVnRqqu3FQw/lXhoXzTCZ+EuyAJK9IOa82nh+80EZFcU2OhTp Pg74/haxAj5vLZbTMdQ7/oS6wTjhE9fiWG03mxr0=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DSftuLCOEIxw; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 18:11:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 18:11:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 25E92353A37; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 12:11:31 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 25E92353A37
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B4D4052AD5; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 12:11:31 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 12:11:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, i18ndir@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJ4itu2Uy1+mcdezWQdwDawY0OcPy+B6Qgt4ZdW=fLovQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1909041207520.9184@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <156747952912.12965.18139183538869398923@ietfa.amsl.com> <3B79ACC1CBCD8540E819481A@PSB> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1909041021030.6823@bofh.nohats.ca> <CALaySJJ4itu2Uy1+mcdezWQdwDawY0OcPy+B6Qgt4ZdW=fLovQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18ndir/447K8rPgc9Mezv0bMJITLEPBS04>
Subject: Re: [I18ndir] Secdir last call review of draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-05
X-BeenThere: i18ndir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internationalization Directorate <i18ndir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i18ndir>, <mailto:i18ndir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i18ndir/>
List-Post: <mailto:i18ndir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i18ndir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18ndir>, <mailto:i18ndir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 16:11:39 -0000

On Wed, 4 Sep 2019, Barry Leiba wrote:

[ trimmed CC: as this is no longer about the specific document ]

> the text" angle, between "RFC 5891" and "[RFC5891]".  This is,
> therefore, an issue of tooling.  If we should change the HTML
> rendering so that "RFC 5891" or "RFC5891" were as readily clickable as
> "[RFC5891]", this would simply not be a problem, right?  Assuming
> that, I think I will have a conversation with the tools team: we
> should just do it.

Yes, that's right. And it would be nice to update the tooling.

> Yes, lots of discussion, yes, we'll leave it as it is for this case.  But...
>
> In the general case, I actually rail *against* "SHOULD X, but MAY Y",
> because I think they're contradictory: doing Y is not an entirely
> optional choice (and MAY is too flaky anyway, and doesn't work here).
> My strong preference is for using the following:
> - MUST do X unless <condition>, in which case MUST do Y.
> - MUST do X unless <condition>, in which case SHOULD do Y.
> - MUST do X unless <condition>, in which case implementations generally do Y.
> - SHOULD do X.  <explanation>

I fully agree. In this case I was just trying to stick as much as
possible to the original text. But in the general case, I agree with
what you write here, and that MAY should only be used on its own, and
not as a branch of a SHOULD.

Paul