IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] [Int-dir] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security-02

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 26 January 2017 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744DE1299B2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 eazAATzh_f1P for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22f.google.com (mail-qt0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40F1E1299A6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id w20so31448087qtb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=yhUSgd+YNPnWm+6I6yUwArKW77qmdQgo0WLcKiUJCMs=; b=ezzTO9EfzCsUCASoG6OIqsl5F9IMbpPL2rSin90Y1cgw0j0UiMJW18g5o15Gqzoc7R 9KzggzkyidHOOF3iBQIy+OiAbfhYTOVaDqJo43NznRKIhpZpMFYskyaU+CacRgR2V4Hy HhcMzvFZrzHONkLgl/HcevMYdBeZjkgJqCrItX35iJs6n8CAKBKCTGBpMIES+262qV78 Jnk+u4yC/gjXftTbmf8sbgCBXOI3nF1BH9quUXe1zMwuYkWKS1XnOlM/sLRf6DmGIftz 7mVCpG4LPFt1Ovq5OFuv63gP5HnVA4RLM64/78Ljgbpq5Dg4Pcn3BeawIDI66L48cjeU 7XpA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=yhUSgd+YNPnWm+6I6yUwArKW77qmdQgo0WLcKiUJCMs=; b=ePJ7n3uyeBRRTeLcyqXgU1lC+xgDEhrOlf3idiXeX2HK+eTTlsfuvUTFCj7GKtfUTz qbKpbsp4fXsac12/RRLzee3WQfuAtn5U4UkA0Pi4sXniOSr6YgWUrK0mDfPygetH3Don MFdi3PViUHZZ2NdEpiSAEU3o3H/piJ4cKbBrpTExZmuEZZe6d2DPTkplo60OzBWyr0j3 dbBGEHsBA6KKu+yNlHqh44/SFzUjpXBscW1OcIVevIayr4FZ9tkI1XILsNKOy4/wk3SI ZDGda0kKiGKZDOen5noeQLZwq5Sc2SZJunM05WBNSxXaIv3qETV/x4z+POOffZZAmKFP 94aA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLeZYZ2eeIOET+T7eRHxhGVuecsPoMbxKbSHlJVSC186Brnx8AdaeSeO9KKmVxZvQ==
X-Received: by 10.237.62.68 with SMTP id m4mr4177076qtf.171.1485458826205; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.228] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d186sm2013056qka.7.2017.01.26.11.27.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <519FB5EF-52B0-4DEA-B670-2D2593C3FB66@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A4649E0F-9747-44AF-9D5B-8AECE3166C47"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [Int-dir] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security-02
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:27:02 -0500
In-Reply-To: <367DE531-AF9C-40A3-8B1F-5F595D804023@gmail.com>
To: "jouni.nospam" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
References: <148541310715.6205.3276873953603821357.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <ff898bc0-81ce-7598-c3f3-2e114d30df30@gmail.com> <e996599692ff4584b8ace30a36ea6881@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <B3CE8C9D-C20C-4FAB-9054-0F09B2B87F63@gmail.com> <C099032E-F538-43AD-970F-F71A1A9E15D8@fugue.com> <367DE531-AF9C-40A3-8B1F-5F595D804023@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/K8T6IA4yMowUenH9zo2jhUU-_CA>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "int-dir@ietf.org" <int-dir@ietf.org>, Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>, Jouni Korhonen <jounikor@gmail.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security.all@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 19:27:10 -0000

On Jan 26, 2017, at 1:58 PM, jouni.nospam <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> No. But in this case there are pieces of text that change specific places in the original document from SHOULDs to MUSTs, musts to MUSTs, and adds few pieces of new stuff, etc. Now how that in not updating? Changes or “extensions” like that would be nice to follow from the base document.

Okay, I see your point.   But suppose the document were changed so that rather than "updating" the document as you suggest, it simply referenced the sections in question and then made the SHOULDs into MUSTs that way?   Wouldn't that mean "implementations of this extension MUST," and wouldn't that be perfectly reasonable?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email