Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure

Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org> Mon, 17 August 2009 01:36 UTC

Return-Path: <phoffman@imc.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5232728C111; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F8++L7L7P6UB; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (properopus-pt.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:392::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4969E3A6833; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n7H1aooO061785 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:36:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from phoffman@imc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624080bc6ae63623b97@[10.20.30.158]>
In-Reply-To: <20090815004234.GN1043@Sun.COM>
References: <Pine.WNT.4.64.0906080948290.6048@SANDYM-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <20090814221222.GH1043@Sun.COM> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5807D55441@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <20090815004234.GN1043@Sun.COM>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:36:48 -0700
To: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
From: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: "Mitesh Dalal \(mdalal\)" <mdalal@cisco.com>, "Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <ananth@cisco.com>, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 17 Aug 2009 01:36:52 -0000

At 7:42 PM -0500 8/14/09, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>It'd be silly to make this a Standards-Track RFC with not a single
>REQUIRED to implement feature in it -- all implementations of anything,
>anywhere, could then claim to be compliant. 

The draft in question normatively relies on the definitions in RFC 2119 and, because it is slated for standards track, RFC 2026.

Any implementation of any type of RFC, not just standards track RFCs, can claim whatever it wants. 'Twas ever thus.

If you want to update RFC 2026 to deal with the issue of standards track documents with no RFC 2119 MUST statements, that's fine. However, doing so should not affect Internet Drafts while the IETF goes through yet another process on process.