Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search-02

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 23 July 2014 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090491A031D; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 NbCca1q5oZME; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x234.google.com (mail-lb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A98861A0117; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id v6so1020238lbi.39 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=vr7vhHoOEptU6c+0F1Db3nsBYl/TxJPlAerXkivD608=; b=UVig7Dn8tpbG24NWj0VuzMSppqxvbTaz5q3crTR9CmfhVh8Y1JmFJi6wVY4E5OZwjh iue4TKGwyiiLlx6Hi3qmEEkQ9ZHCZowQ/dihobjYocz1nFsDSs1OGTVsscswMUF9ruJG XWM6wO2ZjWwIQudiRfM5dKE45DxcxK5WjXsa/9WVikEg7dfX8TGDS8gAbFvXcVkZuAbP HKjJQRqxxCCidi+4jxg2KXymb02zn94H0T0WWi7Ev1PoBEePgxPf+wYy6CGMyW43n9YA 4jvkGSD57Dm2SRsL2UZ01ZcUPOO6gjB3rPnFCDD1NJRea2/3pN8mLtNMIDryk1QLtYvi q8jA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.206.105 with SMTP id ln9mr2284125lac.45.1406128943774; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.8.46 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A818435EF0@szxeml557-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <004101cfa273$b2c9c4a0$185d4de0$@nict.go.jp> <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A818435EF0@szxeml557-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:22:23 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: flVkYJmNz9eoNrBptilay9RROOg
Message-ID: <CALaySJLVBz-=OAVh0GyNV=CZbGc0aZwYr3gBbbq03Qspk2KPUw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/52twP-LzLKzypu-O84rIXF2LSuo
Cc: "draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search.all@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search-02
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:22:27 -0000

Hi, Tina, and thanks for the review.

> The two numbered bullets in page 5 (section 2.2) and the first and
> third bullets in page 6 (Section 2.2) should use RFC2119 language.

I very much disagree; I think it's quite fine as it is, and says
exactly what it needs to.  Is the language unclear?

>> his extension allows a client to search multiple mailboxes
>>    with one command, limiting round trips delay
>
> Maybe something like "transaction delay" or something along
> those lines would be better?

No, the Introduction section is clear that we want to talk about round
trips.  What you're quoting is from the Abstract.  Lots of App-layer
stuff talks about round trips.  But, yes, "round trips delay" is
awkward.  I think this might work better:

OLD
   This extension allows a client to search multiple mailboxes
   with one command, limiting round trips delay, and not requiring
   disruption of the currently selected mailbox.
NEW
   This extension allows a client to search multiple mailboxes
   with one command, limiting the delays caused by many round
   trips, and not requiring disruption of the currently selected
   mailbox.
END

>>    There is
>>    now implementation experience, giving confidence in the protocol, so
>>    this document puts the extension on the Standards Track, with some
>>    minor updates that were informed by the implementation experience.
>
> You may want to replace "informed" with "motivated".

I very much don't.  "Informed" is actually the right word.  This odd
use of "motivate" has become popular in the tech world in recent
years, but it's not correct English usage, and I've always found it
icky.[1]

Barry


[1] "Icky" is, of course, perfectly correct English....