IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: secid review of draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Tue, 25 September 2007 13:55 UTC

Return-path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaAtG-0003iy-RG; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:55:54 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaAtE-0003dF-Tp for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:55:52 -0400
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org ([69.25.196.178]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaAt9-0000Ck-KR for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:55:47 -0400
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 3096248C4; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:55:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
References: <02c601c7feef$b6460730$6702a8c0@china.huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:55:45 -0400
In-Reply-To: <02c601c7feef$b6460730$6702a8c0@china.huawei.com> (David Harrington's message of "Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:13:09 -0400")
Message-ID: <tslve9yg87y.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89
Cc: 'IETF discussion list' <ietf@ietf.org>, tim.polk@nist.gov, secdir@mit.edu, psavola@funet.fi, jari.arkko@piuha.net, gnn@neville-neil.com
Subject: Re: secid review of draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

So, BCP 61's claim that MUST is for implementers and SHOULD is for
users is always something I've interpreted as non-normative and
additional explanation of RFC 2199.  Well, I' guess it is normative in
that we do not for security reasons require that security be used.


I certainly think reviewing the musts and shoulds in this case is
fine, but if the authors believe they used the right word, then leave
the text.  If there is a problem we can clean it up during iesg
evaluation.


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email