Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-02

Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr> Wed, 24 June 2015 06:08 UTC

Return-Path: <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
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 A2C481B2A1A; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 23:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 uF3Hkn8WHjyu; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 23:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0B811B2A17; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 23:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,670,1427752800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="166979934"
Received: from geve.inrialpes.fr ([194.199.24.116]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Jun 2015 08:08:18 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_77D7F85B-8D30-4C04-A573-B5CE50AA5B2C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <87B34D50-F69C-4436-A470-A5F56FF4EE42@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:08:19 +0200
Message-Id: <FF0F79DA-6B1D-41AE-A6B1-DD0B5AE111D7@inria.fr>
References: <2E90B73E-0309-4C49-B208-C2E30A0B6B22@inria.fr> <55882D28.3020701@nostrum.com> <DCB97AA2-6243-4266-B145-B6B6834AE627@inria.fr> <87B34D50-F69C-4436-A470-A5F56FF4EE42@nostrum.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/OrZBAInoC3SX5xvzzBASn8sTtIM>
Cc: draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription@tools.ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 24 Jun 2015 06:08:22 -0000

Hello Ben,

I do understand that such a practice across different documents is dangerous.
But this is not what I’ve been doing so far within a single document. I’ll think about
it in the future.
Thanks,

  Vincent


> Le 23 juin 2015 à 16:33, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> a écrit :
> 
> On 23 Jun 2015, at 3:02, Vincent Roca wrote:
> 
>> Ben made a similar comment. The first 2119 requirement you point to needs to move up into the protocol definition part of the document.
>>>> The second is restating text that’s in RFC3261, and we don't need to repeat the 2119 here - I'll clarify the language to say "use the mechanisms the base specification provides".
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> VR: IMHO repeating normative vocabulary is not an issue as long as it is used homogeneously in the whole document,
>> whereas the opposite would be an issue.
> 
> While this is small enough to not matter either way, in general I prefer not to have multiple occurrences of the same normative statement, unless one clearly refers to the other. Even if they are in sync, it can cause confusion for people trying to reference authoritative text, and an opportunity for error in future updates.