IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] [rtcweb] sector review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23

Chris Inacio <inacio@cert.org> Wed, 10 June 2015 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <inacio@cert.org>
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 7843C1A00F3; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 4WzXR7BsIPn4; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shetland.sei.cmu.edu (shetland.sei.cmu.edu [192.58.107.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 112AA1A0091; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from timber.sei.cmu.edu (timber.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.23]) by shetland.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1408) with ESMTP id t5AIYPKX017219; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:34:25 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cert.org; s=jthatj15xw2j; t=1433961266; bh=bhnNdMnS9M/mCUISEP8TcP2nw3GptvSuIxvDDHOFa8I=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:Sender: Reply-To; b=YgMaHQoSuzl3WMASp2GrjfSrTIaaZw6EDsnqYJgmNsN0RGNl052ZBNRRP7h63Kx55 +j+37tGW3b0jH8i8RyhQGQzJESXAB9pSxa8GHgsSCTlGbAFk1lfUyLF9RPMdeEgwkW e8YOWdrCguVz13WUJxuEfJCiFh7AMEJ0DFZTZHMo=
Received: from CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cassina.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.249]) by timber.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1456) with ESMTP id t5AIYKHC003932; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:34:20 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.249]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:34:20 -0400
From: Chris Inacio <inacio@cert.org>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] sector review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23
Thread-Index: AQHQosbhcvT38Apty0Os5Xa8WMhXhJ2mJ7aAgAALVYD//9+Hag==
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:34:20 +0000
Message-ID: <2D926D03-6D62-4C9E-AA5B-330E168DD969@cert.org>
References: <24C0D45F-DBF0-43A4-A2D6-B086F7EC368F@cert.org> <55785CA7.4090005@ericsson.com>,<55786629.6060705@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <55786629.6060705@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/5eh_NOAETFFPQx3UZc4CB53ZsFo>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23@tools.ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [rtcweb] sector review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23
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, 10 Jun 2015 18:34:31 -0000


> On Jun 10, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> On 6/10/15 10:49, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>> page 6:
>>> 
>>> “This specification requires the usage of a single CNAME when sending
>>> RTP Packet Streams…”   should the “require” be “REQUIRE”?
>> 
>> This is intended as an informational reference, thus I propose to change this to "mandates" thus avoiding the RFC2119 terms.
> 
> RFC 2119 doesn't remove the words "require", "must", "should", "may" and "recommend" from the English language. If all you mean is the ordinary word "require," (rather than the 2119 term "REQUIRE"), then "require" is just fine.
> 
> /a

That was exactly my comment and you have made a thoughtful decision -- I'm good. 

--
Chris Inacio

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email