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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 26 January 2017 18:37 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 AE28F12997E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:37:04 -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=ham 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 YGdn2Xf8KgbW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:37:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22b.google.com (mail-qt0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22b]) (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 1383412997F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:37:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id x49so89314492qtc.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:37:03 -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=U1zyNx1z2Mfc4fGygZL9pXhANg63kmSpZIgSSCHAS8A=; b=sYKPfgILzdSBD9OqZMDTVClCFuXVu56DZ4j7Xa+ceN2byVQ93jJq8T1/xL2BCjrtLR qxN41JDe4ASB61yuiYfsDeeTlCbXaIam8aWEtX4NbeREvyaNcOr4BrJ7V4CY/ZJpWIyg bn4LAzMXUjnXQWj4Xa0nAxFrPmow/zKCnlEeLvjQOGCCnis14xyM512ehBm3Jh7QG+Pj rsRe/+Oo4gX/aEol05uUF1Od5PLfygbhqmMy/inufppOmIP8nApqUIcEAcVBMXKabeF8 iOhQFnOyIlxBzJoZUP/TC6r/UYGLk1ngMaXiaft+yH1ft/tzXZ6LZGthWeSmGqCz8Yk1 ElGw==
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=U1zyNx1z2Mfc4fGygZL9pXhANg63kmSpZIgSSCHAS8A=; b=D+HdaBDVV8fal9O7S1XU5zQuljc7Ej8+v9QywBANZvcaulmW1cA90I3KTXFEf/yhH/ z1XzlVkRQb87lb0XYKda4ehHt7HRIjjoiuY1+WVaUbRiSCaFdWkzYL3x7tZ5Ooum92oN EQAD/EsCo6bxdzoY8TwLlhdQSem6OxYZxmWFXgZ3XjkOBcHjFml7nLMiN9oma4VUSKaX T5s/ssOIt7qPHZZ8GlHHKG+qRW2WKgFwq36t1J9+Ei02sJ4CqxIZSrDBGsQT+88CAJ2n 04xLugVHrxlE8ncCNFZULZARekZyX1uNDhlgQ0NCIP8aZTLarwNh9uOH+jGUwXEaL1IX txpQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKhO6qolgZT9CEojQMWECWE0/TFTA5caYCCiKgQw0BecEnVi5RALZqBTuT4ppQaFw==
X-Received: by 10.200.48.44 with SMTP id f41mr4098377qte.153.1485455822223; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:37:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.228] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j129sm1861039qkd.47.2017.01.26.10.37.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:37:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <C099032E-F538-43AD-970F-F71A1A9E15D8@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3C878D77-1F36-4C34-B434-B02066DB4B48"
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 13:36:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: <B3CE8C9D-C20C-4FAB-9054-0F09B2B87F63@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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ycpgCPefRKFPxw-FGBM37E4IXjA>
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 18:37:05 -0000

On Jan 26, 2017, at 1:25 PM, jouni.nospam <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm.. I really do not like specification “games” like this. If you cannot justify a MUST into RFC3315bis, then trying to circumvent the fact in another document (that does not update the RFC3315 or RFC3315bis) should not be a Standards Track document. I could accept this as a BCP or a like.

Hm, then you are saying that every extension ever done to a protocol that, if it contains MUSTs, MUST update that protocol, even if implementations that support the extension can interoperate with implementations that do not and vice versa.   What's your basis for this?