[ippm] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-09: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In Section 5.2, you have:

   The server and client implementations SHOULD support PDM, unencrypted
   PDMv2, and encrypted PDMv2.

As I parse this, it makes it possible that an implementation does none of
these.  Is that okay?  Or if a client supports only PDM and the server only
supports unencrypted PDMv2, both are compliant, but they will fail to
interoperate.  Is that okay?  Do we need at least a common minimum?

This is reminiscent of SPF's original specification, which had a similar
problem.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support I'm uneasy about the SHOULDs in Section 5.2.  What are we trying to
say here differently than the "should" instances elsewhere in this section?