Re: [regext] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 09 April 2020 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC933A0B67; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 06:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.403
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 BUMpFfHuC2uD; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 06:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f65.google.com (mail-io1-f65.google.com [209.85.166.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76F7F3A0ABE; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 06:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f65.google.com with SMTP id f3so3894267ioj.1; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 06:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vwo1piIlv4dFGN5uXBSUYj/W+q2V0y8Ws2mfFXmt+9Q=; b=bytc2ql+94r5KFEav/4bu3aYKfDTm21nKpfqWJ6TJMvmHQbmds4GuPLsLv/Nn3Ad60 tGEs3M85huN20/DTMEDcLXsYXn18uqwHLotvLknLpY8S4hqqSt+y8pK/RoIIMFfFziYI WDtEBAr1gAoVZ4GC13mYOvTc3Wtb38ll12VHzKKM4QOpyam6G3i/tcp2zpH9yPMv9mGT 4OYrCR3ndsvQxlyTq/VUEWNqR85knnyc8ggxr0OoolO4qaJFrZkYySzGUA9dlpd/Ogve fwdSLY95lvSeYj1Hgfj3fdwENgFfJoh0tJ3GgpGQ8nPtResmx+F9HzDztPReaFnpVMtN nkew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYk86Xyl5+2j99T9Xnu540h9gEB+/QJl+VRIiM52I0eN6cp//Ij XP0+r1HMJepNOg9pXklMY0J6GGU0aGW2WlCc6ti5n1dpGEY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLg4lBGgR82IS0RFcXen8Ix4FIQeTvVGFpgaJHxumkAMC3D3H7bwCohiblwXsIGSl2ivb9XEDszlzneBLmrEjw=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9a8d:: with SMTP id c13mr4744606iom.160.1586439938650; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 06:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158640169839.8818.1279086565967125626@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <158640169839.8818.1279086565967125626@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:45:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+jfWdtzHe8NQjm7oNq_3_C4V7xKArxRDMjw68yYpanzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, regext-chairs <regext-chairs@ietf.org>, James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>, regext <regext@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/sMn4rEsWIsa6k66p9CmnOQXH-3c>
Subject: Re: [regext] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 13:45:42 -0000

> Section 5.1.3: "This element SHOULD be present in deposits of type Incremental
> or Differential."  This makes it sound like a deposit of those two types not
> using this element might be non-compliant.  I suggest instead "This element is
> only used in Incremental and Differential deposits."  (Or instead of "used",
> maybe "meaningful".)
>
> Section 5.1.4: " It SHOULD be present in all type of deposits."  Same issue.
> Maybe "It is valid for use in all types of deposits."

I don't understand this: "SHOULD" means that "there may exist valid
reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but
the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before
choosing a different course."  The text in this document isn't saying
that these make sense in the places they specify: the document *does*
mean "SHOULD" here.  Certainly, "there are no relevant items to
include" is a valid reason.

What's the point of your objection?

Barry