Re: Is the invariants draft really standards track?

Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> Tue, 26 May 2020 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.net>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419DA3A0BAB for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=W139ZPvq; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=LwXx4glF
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 7DYNDteIMQow for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC4233A0BAA for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA71FC3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 19:18:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 26 May 2020 19:18:27 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=ZRAYcXLyKq5V5ALgrYylnqZI1HDzHnO L9Z+Q56JtkQQ=; b=W139ZPvqIxCHC09rP3TH71t9g+FuXL4nL/AVhVZoHJFs4r8 svrrMXalT2080LYxWt9EgVl3BvUBgpe+AZHW4rzr4j8y3CJkPT1rkbU3HWLzOl+z H1L/dVUctTym6eb2jUr8zCZHFtEomNts8sGFftIVfExEzZVkti/RExL1THkIvXy4 Qn8RGYPllh+EGIUi1IqJTDc00dNFqvF5LCFO+FmKLPYd9M/qeN/VUWmjJMspS/fX qtMsDrbn37iNpeG0ypHJfieg27ReK2PwBkQtA39K9F+u68Mr+iBRJRgF6tP5JTDp D8mq/VWuX3/eQ9luL0iO8WZFfBrq2b+C3JDN2Og==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=ZRAYcX LyKq5V5ALgrYylnqZI1HDzHnOL9Z+Q56JtkQQ=; b=LwXx4glFJR+uLvR0heoyoF TftW56Kiks7fUoxyU+6jiRTansmnsivLQW8sdjsJP/Zh5x+TIx3XCU2x3syyMyGO m9ZYQnPNGAfFVtjuHVn/sgyO74AwqpYrnl7gWwgtTt0/nMFyjSsl1akXQC+hsm82 TO8bidqRy2IGI9RN5Wu+VsAQ7qJx/iGXqtCUhzdMSZ/u6DM5pVgjjcL/KlqQAtz/ 3wnYAV+n1A7FONrxxv4dT5y4RsJIOvGJ2AanEtGkoVDsYHJiXuC5jNPA+qR+K2Tc ijpsMNKTD80gj9Y28z3sy02zK51OIgjEvtkAKcfCNZSyAxuJq/+eBLOj7wYXlghg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:w6PNXt1EmQfEChG0ZxXGxYUxUv0cldmgBBtj9ZOUbzqP0vLtfvnLUQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedruddvfedgudelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeekteeuieektdekleefke evhfekffevvdevgfekgfeluefgvdejjeegffeigedtjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvg ht
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:w6PNXkH80llw-4aUm9NRqW4dZh4XgMXEzhjzLhzxDSkxzuw91yU1Dg> <xmx:w6PNXt4lxK7nps3Lvo5y0F4BNWBpKwULoS8-2CWCu1yZv8lGpLEVQg> <xmx:w6PNXq3_FFXd7ZpFEcjbV5MGV6GpsW3jNU9f4rYHkk62-QJYiElKfA> <xmx:w6PNXkHYLtmrYHBTKtyJqXRit1gf7G2wB0vmZXblYbqQXUNeEkKcEA>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 037A9E00B0; Tue, 26 May 2020 19:18:26 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-dev0-488-g9249dd4-fm-20200522.001-g9249dd48
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <f72e6e77-89d5-4d88-8d25-ef77a5a1109d@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxQBqfrz24riPQA_VGKcGp_TzW0pqb97KfFMtNdW9pUfDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM4esxQBqfrz24riPQA_VGKcGp_TzW0pqb97KfFMtNdW9pUfDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 09:18:06 +1000
From: "Martin Thomson" <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: quic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Is the invariants draft really standards track?
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/NLzIGZfDf722lvF1crK6GRpUouc>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 23:18:30 -0000

On Wed, May 27, 2020, at 03:55, Martin Duke wrote:
> The only RFC 2119 keywords in this document 

Just because we don't use MUST (much), it doesn't make the language any less normative.

> What do others think?

I think that this has to be standards track.  It's making a commitment.  If we need more MUSTs, then feel free to propose it.