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

"jouni.nospam" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Fri, 27 January 2017 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 1520512987B; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:20:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 AFw_8-MIZCU6; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:20:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x241.google.com (mail-pg0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::241]) (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 E3265129873; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:20:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x241.google.com with SMTP id 75so25759853pgf.3; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:20:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=PBMHZD77YUPeJaNDnW9BH5uP2ReuPROwALQ4itelsns=; b=fmUquGL0XycZK3sDd5wSWzupSqe7p0Ycgw+w6rcNuVIkZnRDhL4QOd9vEdBx0wTjiW hH2gPktO6hWPsVwd+c8p93YaFUwZnLvDFZYhUkqFMr/NlwpLagXcGSLBSxdJkXURQ1Yq JB6Ty1I38JP7l5C8L8w/ykaLHoSsvRk2zly9BmYmtF3KCG912GkuZRAOhGJR5K8QH5ik D25Pdy37FhF/sAWvRA1fy9rJ2645uWiGAGqNAo0BQ5oIwdB9HBe6Vk8e+NjjvirV5S++ PqQMua1M4bkDtzgZ4pMnwgJLi0m+gOii0Q1Spn2pOqHS+kQvGT535DlNpD2irkhm/3xI ufAA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=PBMHZD77YUPeJaNDnW9BH5uP2ReuPROwALQ4itelsns=; b=jvBPnNrLIc065sxGw4o1X3HFQxQCj+cS5Ho374z2cecrUAwDA70EsbJT6qTOmpro01 cVeTJ1AAzSlY4RKE2GmlyYgb5wzj0qj3aKH60ei0y/1bn6US15b/dziwh+T/w2dt9698 WhM1PDAQKPCv1demeqOaOI0W8SEzrcnvz9/A5jOG1sNnVNzk2ZD9hFVaETFT2Yspxp8l AE4yuygat8rOXa2YYm5bdVqjKHFWjWMGq1fFEPMVEKu8BoUKugOOqO2LVwaijhN9YeHn BeXdWlJJl18RmNxR6XTILajnmjqMM0qSZY1gum0WuAYa1/+l5NW6NdEh8sYQZzZSk/sw 21XQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIxmBy4qOuEFFCclT8BSiuWyUBergbvG6oyKRaJRYtLOS3G5AJFfgyhDJmM1yS9cA==
X-Received: by 10.84.218.5 with SMTP id q5mr14926051pli.80.1485548406480; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:20:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.89.94] ([216.31.219.19]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u124sm13406037pgb.6.2017.01.27.12.20.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:20:05 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
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
From: "jouni.nospam" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <519FB5EF-52B0-4DEA-B670-2D2593C3FB66@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:20:03 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6DA7EAEF-C226-43E2-800A-9C3CB7F9FB6D@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> <519FB5EF-52B0-4DEA-B670-2D2593C3FB66@fugue.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/eEgyIMjWO1X2hXCqJ8XCrxHNPbs>
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: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:20:08 -0000

> On Jan 26, 2017, at 11:27 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 

I would still argue that it updates specifically if the document here is going to be standards track. If this document here would be more of a recommendation e.g., BCP I would be fine without the “updating” part (as I remember the MUST for IPsec in RFC3315bis was not endorsed by the WG).

- Jouni