IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-07: (with DISCUSS)

Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> Wed, 16 September 2015 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <dthaler@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448E91B406B; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 2S9Zusu0pAxb; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0724.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::724]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 331DA1B4067; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=PSdckiILZud6q5T1tsnNH9Bb0xCBHglcVzBxBClYTLU=; b=fg6O6gwB+hhrAegw+kofwfswmD07GQZk+hu1MWompYnYbC6LE0rxVGWb1blzgidbTOqT/tx/9EXzfmv5pU5PMezAplu9pKvdRPaVaivb9cNnpMv0ad0rUhd4S9YMgTJRc1Gf+D4v+/pAG47SE8rWKZP7HJOROhMmf2oZqgseEBo=
Received: from BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.141.25) by BY2PR03MB411.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.141.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.262.15; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:57:01 +0000
Received: from BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.141.25]) by BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.141.25]) with mapi id 15.01.0262.022; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:57:02 +0000
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-07: (with DISCUSS)
Thread-Index: AQHQ8IsgOgCCRewwAUqeSV3kG+NkYZ4/PWNA
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:57:01 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR03MB412BFEB65F772EE9E371FCCA35B0@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20150916142227.30400.37739.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150916142227.30400.37739.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=dthaler@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [67.182.144.235]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR03MB411; 5:xxXsbZ1qecsGJaJqk64Dx+G5AY0m5MJDke2xeB3GcFQ9r/ffFH13gtI8M3n4+71oCIqb59guO+KZglbfCoQwByWHXmzQ3UP+HNK5uzXutlfgmeN1P/tEk1S0/N3bJAzQ2Lisd66m8Hm+jNXBGnHXeA==; 24:7JtjV3a4fIho5/RsdH2PO9QUshYLCWemGsiOCUjcafMVm32tMp6ShjylgX94xREPK5B05hRBbKedLtlVjKtbIV69UOFowGVW4phYZU1llEU=; 20:i4YdFxGFYpMh/jum703B7nv9tEgOpn6XNaj7j+dtE++RxGlrHsWuJhTapeW2rRX4mK3YtSgNg2K11ZSJumGAFw==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR03MB411;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY2PR03MB41123B07B640A0C8230A3ADA35B0@BY2PR03MB411.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401001)(5005006)(8121501046)(520078)(520075)(3002001); SRVR:BY2PR03MB411; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR03MB411;
x-forefront-prvs: 07013D7479
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(979002)(6009001)(189002)(199003)(40100003)(101416001)(68736005)(10400500002)(77156002)(5005710100001)(122556002)(8990500004)(10090500001)(66066001)(77096005)(87936001)(5002640100001)(2900100001)(54356999)(92566002)(106116001)(230783001)(2950100001)(62966003)(5004730100002)(5003600100002)(5001770100001)(5007970100001)(105586002)(76576001)(86362001)(102836002)(106356001)(5001830100001)(5001920100001)(33656002)(5001960100002)(10290500002)(5001860100001)(97736004)(86612001)(50986999)(64706001)(46102003)(81156007)(76176999)(99286002)(189998001)(74316001)(4001540100001)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB411; H:BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Sep 2015 14:57:01.7823 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR03MB411
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/4a_f-ObD2jVSxkaqCx9JNV9TIxU>
Cc: "draft-ietf-pcp-anycast.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pcp-anycast.shepherd@ietf.org>, "pcp-chairs@ietf.org" <pcp-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pcp-anycast.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pcp-anycast.ad@ietf.org>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pcp-anycast@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pcp-anycast@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-07: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:57:23 -0000

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm surprised by the lack of RFC 2119 keywords in a spec like this.
> For example:
> 
>    The PCP anycast addresses, as defined in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, are
>    added after the default router list (for IPv4 and IPv6) to the list
>    of PCP server(s)
>
>              MUST?
>
>     ...
>
>   A PCP Server can be configured to listen on the anycast address for
>   incoming PCP requests.
>
>	Is this a MAY or SHOULD?
>
>
> What is the rationale for not using the RFC 2119 keywords?
> Question to my fellow ADs. I'm so used to RFC 2119 keywords for such type of specifications that I now wonder:
> what are the guidelines for may/should/must use the RFC 2119 for standard track spec?
> At this point, it's preferable for the authors to wait for guidance from the responsible AD and IESG.

My thoughts as document shepherd (and WG chair)...

The guidelines are in RFC 2119 section 6 which states:
> 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives
>
>    Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
>    and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
>    actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
>    potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)  For
>    example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
>    on implementors where the method is not required for
>    interoperability.

The WG believes that the guidance above means that 2119 keywords is
less appropriate for section 2 of draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-07 than the existing
text.

Dave

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email