IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-dir] [dhcwg] 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: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFC912997E for <int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:37:05 -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 vImB7irQnXwB for <int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:37:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x230.google.com (mail-qt0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::230]) (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 17F11129981 for <int-dir@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:37:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x230.google.com with SMTP id v23so89767160qtb.0 for <int-dir@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=BrgCuyqNFuBxENQD7Ne/zE+6SmYdBLQuQJesbWHMIfSuJ5oFVy0O4DCNn0f1vRRL+S FnT/s/2PtsuhsMByBo2za+ayMKiy33y5e8fQs67NEJ48OtDLSxuztsZmxPo8Xao09wwq 6nFaxiGgxLkBWua4C6ooJwEh2mS6lxnjUVL8ivNBX9aiiTlRHXWZy+6T8P+TI/fFwz88 rfgFXDVY6ynB09DM26UIwRW4cToo4zMK71Tc+0i5vQGRsET8Bfpsk/ECzYtGVYK4n8Ct FjGcfMM2jLXW6erH2sWOzZ2ezZPb86DpkmEZwXj6fr3kp8OW+iIKaQSMJzP1pJli4oGz XTTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKH7zZqRnK3hUys+19KV6CHPxThogWuFe8iz8O/2YmxfUgenNgxJakctXaIsnp2kg==
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 \(3259\))
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/int-dir/754mwbnPuSKYAVDrK7KG84lkFz4>
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>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] [dhcwg] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security-02
X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." <int-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:37:06 -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?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email