Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-19

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 09 July 2012 00:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0148A21F87EE; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.549, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NjwSvGvScWsq; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C8B21F87ED; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.196.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1025722E1EB; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 20:52:40 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <DB34634F-A783-4B18-A9CA-C0D571A717F4@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:52:37 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DE72BACC-BF0E-448F-A8E2-DA02F162FC10@mnot.net>
References: <4F955E48.7060908@cisco.com> <F76C6CF1-F6B8-429F-A57F-D2B4794EFE93@mnot.net> <DB34634F-A783-4B18-A9CA-C0D571A717F4@cisco.com>
To: Klaas Wierenga <klaas@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional.all@tools.ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-19
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:52:25 -0000

On 06/07/2012, at 7:11 PM, Klaas Wierenga wrote:
>>> 
>>> "ought to" is not very normative. Why not make it MUST or SHOULD?
>> 
>> We've used that terminology when we want to give implementation advice, but cannot impose a new RFC2119-level requirement, because it would make existing implementations non-conformant (as per our charter).
> 
> So would that not be a good case for SHOULD with perhaps some explanation along the above lines why it isn't a MUST?

No, because that still affects conformance (saying "you SHOULD do this unless you're an old implementation is awkward and hard to enforce; it also encourages implementations not to update themselves).


>>> 4.1 p17, Not modified, second paragraph
>>> 
>>> A 304 response..... isn't this a fine case of a SHOULD rather than a
>>> MUST? Or perhaps "A 304 response MUST include a Date header field,
>>> unless the origin server.... , in that case a Date header field MUST
>>> NOT be provided", and what actually does "reasonable approximation" mean?
>> 
>> I'm not sure what you're concerned about here; it's a MUST requirement because it's important for interop.
> 
> it is really just for clarity, I had a bit of trouble parsing, rereading I think my remark about SHOULD probably doesn't make sense. Still, I read it like "you MUST do A unless condition B applies in which you MUST NOT do A", I just suggested rephrasing, perhaps to:
> 
> "If condition B applies you MUST do A, if condition B does NOT apply you MUST NOT do A" 


OK, I'll pass that on to the editors.


Thanks again,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/