Re: [netmod] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Sat, 09 March 2019 12:26 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44522127817; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 04:26:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 sl-DVvbXx4W3; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 04:26:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C2B1277DE; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 04:26:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3759860504; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 07:26:24 -0500 (EST)
References: <155183201188.27630.13798246400958114485@ietfa.amsl.com> <0BE3CBAC-40EF-4162-82D0-04C638A3B429@chopps.org> <20190308202645.GY9824@kduck.mit.edu>
User-agent: mu4e 1.1.0; emacs 26.1
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <20190308202645.GY9824@kduck.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 07:26:23 -0500
Message-ID: <sa64l8cjksw.fsf@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/dftMh9Zag8_5nH16DXfinyFGf5c>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 12:26:26 -0000

I will move this reference to normative, I was confused.

Thanks,
Chris.

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>; writes:

> Going up to a more general topic (and ignoring the particulars here):
>
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 05:50:00PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
>> Thanks for the review! Comments inline.
>>
>> > On Mar 5, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>; wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Minor issues:
>> > Abstract/s1: I would judge that RFC 8407 ought to be normative since it is
>> > updated.
>>
>> RFC8407 is a BCP not a Standard though so I don't think it's appropriate to make it normative.
>
> I'm confused by this statement.  BCPs are considered to be standards-track,
> and a reference from a PS document to a BCP is not considered a downref.
> Is the objection that "best current practices" are just that (practices)
> and not part of a mandatory protocol specification?
>
> We do have BCP 195 (RFC 7525), "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport
> Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", which
> are indeed recommendations and best practices for use of TLS in general,
> and as such can apply to anything using TLS, even existing deployed systems
> and protocols.  But we can also have new protocols that say "it is
> mandatory to comply with the behavior described in RFC 7525", and to me
> that is a normative part of the spec.
>
> So I'd like a better understanding of your stance here.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben