Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Wed, 30 October 2013 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.com>
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 5FD5F21E8100 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.515
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 NXbsQtRrpeAQ for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC75521E80FA for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp89-089-218.bbn.com ([128.89.89.218]:51810) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1VbWNL-0004VS-0v; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:03:59 -0400
Message-ID: <527111CF.2050707@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:03:59 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@pobox.com, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, "Mankin, Allison" <amankin@verisign.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <52700DE4.8020208@bbn.com> <5271051E.4040908@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <5271051E.4040908@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24
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: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:04:31 -0000

Julian,

As a coauthor of 6919 I am aware of its status, and the suggestions to 
uppercase
these words was a joke.

Nonetheless, I feel that the terms in question are not good choices for 
an RFC, i.e.,
what is an implementer supposed to do based on these terms?

Steve
> On 2013-10-29 20:35, Stephen Kent wrote:
>> ...
>> I see that “ought” is used in two places on page 6, but not in uppercase
>> as per RFC 6919. The authors should revisit the use of this term here.
>> ...
>> The end of Section 2.2 includes the word “might” but not uppercase, as
>> per RFC 6919. I again suggest that the authors reconsider using this
>> term in this context.
>> ...
>> Section 5.1.2 uses “ought” when discussing definitions for new
>> authentication schemes. See comments above re use of this term.The same
>> section also uses the phrase “need to” twice, where MUST seems 
>> appropriate.
>> ...
>
> We use "ought", "might" etc to disambiguate from RFC2119 keywords. As 
> such it's intentional that they are not uppercased, and that we do not 
> reference RFC 6919 (which, by the way, is dated April 1st).
>
>
> Best regards, Julian
>