IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08

Russ White <riw@cisco.com> Wed, 18 July 2007 13:39 UTC

Return-path: <rpsec-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IB9ka-0003RE-1F; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:39:32 -0400
Received: from rpsec by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IB9kY-0003R9-Kq for rpsec-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:39:30 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IB9kY-0003R1-B9 for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:39:30 -0400
Received: from xmail02.myhosting.com ([168.144.250.15]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IB9kX-0001EH-35 for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:39:30 -0400
Received: (qmail 19755 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2007 13:39:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.100.205]) (Authenticated-user:_russ@riw.us@[65.190.218.139]) (envelope-sender <riw@cisco.com>) by xmail02.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <ttauber@1-4-5.net>; 18 Jul 2007 13:39:26 -0000
Message-ID: <469E1801.3040101@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:39:13 -0400
From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Tauber <ttauber@1-4-5.net>
Subject: Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08
References: <20070717155519.EBC053F47D@pecan.tislabs.com> <p06240500c2c29b114c63@[128.89.89.71]> <20070717163243.GB1426@1-4-5.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070717163243.GB1426@1-4-5.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Cc: rpsec@ietf.org, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>, Sandy Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements <rpsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec>, <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/rpsec>
List-Post: <mailto:rpsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec>, <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>>> The choices seem to boil down to MUST or SHOULD.
>> Or a MUST/SHOULD vs. MAY.
> 
> Right, based on the discussion thus far, I was leaning toward keeping
> the idea in as a MAY.  One might argue that doing so is effectively the
> same as leaving it out altogether, but the intention and information is
> retained.  Beyond that, asserting it as a "MAY" explicitly blocks any
> interpretation which ends in "... NOT".

I would prefer SHOULD over MAY, because I believe there is value in
partially validated data.

:-)

Russ


- --
riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGnhgBER27sUhU9OQRAlW8AKD3fEAg+/R9P2JuMH6zjmd7doNgBgCfZQfx
3xlwMnB/cJsjys6t0Rb9FbE=
=8WLb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
RPSEC@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email