Re: [middisc] closure of the middisc list

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Fri, 01 February 2013 02:20 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Original-To: middisc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: middisc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3DC21F899F for <middisc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:20:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gjRqSPADQ-jJ for <middisc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ACA321F8994 for <middisc@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r112KJQA006457 for <middisc@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:20:19 -0500
Received: (qmail 20545 invoked by uid 0); 1 Feb 2013 02:20:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.145?) (wes@mti-systems.com@69.81.143.143) by 0 with ESMTPA; 1 Feb 2013 02:20:19 -0000
Message-ID: <510B265E.6060003@mti-systems.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:20:14 -0500
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Organization: MTI Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Mahdavi, Jamshid" <jamshid.mahdavi@bluecoat.com>
References: <50ECC3EF.1020405@mti-systems.com> <CAFZUbhfVGwZQLA+cn_MKoM1GLHBddxGTnOfwtksPWs4+P2p0hg@mail.gmail.com> <CD6E74FCC0FE024BB73C6B483F6706FE0FC0FCD3@xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com>, <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F5D2AA9@SACEXCMBX06-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <D22144CF-6E2B-40F0-9DF1-8EF551B93D17@cisco.com> <510B1D7B.1080704@mti-systems.com> <DF29671EFBFC454E984F5A1AD4834F491E79F54E@pwsvl-excmbx-04.internal.cacheflow.com>
In-Reply-To: <DF29671EFBFC454E984F5A1AD4834F491E79F54E@pwsvl-excmbx-04.internal.cacheflow.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "middisc@ietf.org" <middisc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [middisc] closure of the middisc list
X-BeenThere: middisc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions on TCP option for middlebox discovery." <middisc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/middisc>, <mailto:middisc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/middisc>
List-Post: <mailto:middisc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:middisc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/middisc>, <mailto:middisc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 02:20:21 -0000

On 1/31/2013 9:00 PM, Mahdavi, Jamshid wrote:
> I had made some minor comments on the wording (MUST, SHOULD) which I believe we wanted advice from the AD on so Mani knew whether to accept it.
> 
> I also had suggested one very minor change to the content which I hope Mani is ok with accepting.
> 
> Let me know if you need that email resent.
> 
> Otherwise, very happy!
> 


Regarding the 2119 wording, I (personally) prefer your rewording
of it, since those "requirements" are kind of just the design
principles that were aimed for and (as you note) not protocol
conformance requirements.  However, there are many RFCs that
do use 2119 capitalized words for requirements statements, and
there are mixed opinions about it, even in the IESG ... so, it
would be passable either way.  That said, I suspect it will be
smoother sailing if your suggested rewordings are applied :).

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems