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 19:27 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 8A1FD1299A6 for <int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:08 -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 c9738P_EYzU9 for <int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22e.google.com (mail-qt0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22e]) (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 1601312997E for <int-dir@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id k15so92725220qtg.3 for <int-dir@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:27:07 -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=J5Bl2FbEeR6REPdXHPa2KoJuVk3chs+VVPOUAKNWloeMBXFHwX5MqXbCss5ewZRxpU xdfD/BuqSNf5b4wJMVK8nZMwIhG2yct0cX8VvDgsGlLai1x37GyX8WPkGXIokI0XHqLp jTtf7HSMEW4dUyqJodkO82cjfs4UnfNd1bvKEgBmAmXv1+mMEScE4hSZzfggfaZKDhY/ /a+g+wt7uhldrpt8D4fDGav64zwIFK0KZJsQf7L5cPotYxqDD1obS7rBhJa5/AR8AKSi 3sziGWU/aSxvxs0B0zhHkp6YerwZuQeLmoCK5BsgElck+dArdmveAkrKGa/wO5NC+z/c P1iQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKV23VynyUHSc9nvh38KWhE7A1vwRIpYg4N2PruV6RTUIiDsKqhE/NXTVOX+EkG+w==
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 \(3259\))
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/int-dir/Hx2Nx65H6hrF6mF_4tocMHavcsI>
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 19:27:08 -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