IETF Logo Mail Archive

NOT RECOMMENDED (was: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation)

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 02 December 2009 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 970E03A67C0 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:06:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a642+20DNgB8 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:06:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AAB63A6781 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:06:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squire.local (dsl-205-34.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.205.34]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EF9640D16; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 20:05:53 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4B15D988.5030209@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:05:44 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mrex@sap.com
Subject: NOT RECOMMENDED (was: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation)
References: <200912020249.nB22nvQ0007879@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
In-Reply-To: <200912020249.nB22nvQ0007879@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms010501050107080509070302"
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:06:02 -0000

On 12/1/09 7:49 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> 7. 6.2 says: "If servers wish to <<avoid attack>> they MUST
>> NOT <<do stuff>>" Isn't that equivalent to servers SHOULD
>> NOT? I think a SHOULD NOT is better. (And that's the form
>> used in section 7.)
> 
> 
> This might be confusion with ISO terminology.
> 
>    MUST       ==  SHALL
>    MUST NOT   ==  SHALL NOT
>    SHOULD     ==  RECOMMENDED
>    SHOULD NOT ==  NOT RECOMMENDED
> 
> 
>    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>    document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

It's always puzzled me why the boilerplate quoted above does not include
the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED", given that RFC 2119 mentions it a mere
five paragraphs later:

   4. SHOULD NOT  This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
   there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
   particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
   implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
   before implementing any behavior described with this label.

Is this a spec bug in RFC 2119?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status