[IPsec] SHOULD NOT in draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-ah-reqts

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sat, 08 March 2014 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 856701A013F for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Mar 2014 06:14:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
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 DNdsc7ek4jlj for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Mar 2014 06:14:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176921A00FC for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Mar 2014 06:14:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.207.200.36] (host86-189-2-69.range86-189.btcentralplus.com [86.189.2.69]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s28EE5TG076171 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Mar 2014 07:14:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host host86-189-2-69.range86-189.btcentralplus.com [86.189.2.69] claimed to be [10.207.200.36]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71206CF439363@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 14:14:04 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0783904C-64C4-4561-B7B5-D4F57D6B5656@vpnc.org>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71206CF439363@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
To: ipsec <ipsec@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/g6iDVUtwYVRPosJoifl6LFVDLUA
Subject: [IPsec] SHOULD NOT in draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-ah-reqts
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 14:14:14 -0000

On Mar 8, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:

> 	- "SHOULD NOT-" is a better keyword than "SHOULD NOT+"

How do others feel about this? It feels like a bit of a bikeshed, but we may as well be as helpful as possible.

--Paul Hoffman