IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rrvs-header-field

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 20 March 2014 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@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 C9DEC1A077C; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, 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 IkDVU7r4SF5l; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22e.google.com (mail-pa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3FA1A0894; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id kp14so1385077pab.33 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=z//zhonvrP1dwciXgfV12JvGDh0TWYnDjDmOkPJFeNg=; b=ZTG+aJYK8EK7rrKkqsSwHKime7AXqDPze/7R5vsGyetuKMlxJn47Bs2so/m11wKc9W XmpykkrOYpGr5o12O2Z9CoCwDXFVVdIv4KjU7MPMdZGCwUS6swshjLL+FXZkqEVxIJJa EVoiAUyydcblKt3QR8UPbhevrGm75nnSPHeTuKmTSPS84J5M14ixnpuGsc/rW3Qa77Gy tIoWyuOyGUQ4FZHA4qSs79xM2fbS7Yi15fxHTEd4l5ELx7ORuiiZOUdx7My3eAuVHIYA 4wLDTgEcCkBiaAWL+TiolOjukrmS6BwaHDVTTAGmqssqzaJyYO5C7ExcKAUPwUifN9VU rZIg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.118.71 with SMTP id kk7mr48545115pab.14.1395343739598; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.220.102 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJfXEdKQt_g1YpMtEG=PdM1FFoAOkUiJvvTYAM+Zy5yoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <187A7B1DA239514F9146FC78B19AADE30B6CAE6A@xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com> <CAL0qLwYqNKmVH8ruEGBoh3A8h04hazda3X2q6ONuQHC4penTCQ@mail.gmail.com> <187A7B1DA239514F9146FC78B19AADE30B6CC737@xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com> <CAL0qLwYNLuUfYCmwV8dnohZEu_yX9Z883dJoMeo+HPis027gDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJLLNoMW=d0078kBOQw0vby-VW3q6A5EbEb9UtiVCk=jfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYLZ58icuUz2y8naHKNyGsqx6nDCs3Q5DGRXG_4jJy6Ag@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJJfXEdKQt_g1YpMtEG=PdM1FFoAOkUiJvvTYAM+Zy5yoA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:28:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwa66svgGee2JCDMzkBi21FoQ3=Jk2hAd35rpTP5dAefgg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ffbad05f03caa04f50ec7f6"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/6hKHZy5igdlE5t-LKwSD2UWDyKk
Cc: "draft-ietf-appsawg-rrvs-header-field.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-appsawg-rrvs-header-field.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-rrvs-header-field
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: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:29:10 -0000

Done.


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>wrote:

> Go aheand and post now, so the IESG is reviewing the very latest version.
>  T'anks.
>
> b
>
>
> On Thursday, March 20, 2014, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > I can't recall the exact reason why it's been said that RFC2119
>>> language
>>> > ought not be used in Security Considerations (or similar) prose, or
>>> which
>>> > document's development cycle brought it up, but my general
>>> recollection is
>>> > that those words were intended to convey aspects of interoperability
>>> having
>>> > to do with protocol elements, and not otherwise.
>>>
>>> That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.[1]
>>>
>>> May I disabuse y'all of that idea forthwith?  Yes?  Good.  Thank you.
>>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>
>> Given that Shaun's original comment identified these as nits: "What
>> mighty contests arise from trivial things."
>>
>> I've made his changes in the next version, which I'll post after the
>> telechat unless you want them sooner.  The only other pending change is a
>> language tweak in IANA Considerations that came up during their review of
>> that section.
>>
>> -MSK
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email