Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-06

Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Mon, 30 November 2009 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
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 08CDF3A6A9C; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:41:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.385
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.385 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.213, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 ppgv6qSb3ijV; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 163483A6960; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (kalyani.aox.org [79.140.39.164]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B698FA012D; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:40:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no (HELO lochnagar.gulbrandsen.priv.no) by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.2) with esmtp id 1259602679-44536-44535/5/3 (5 recipients); Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:37:59 +0100
Message-Id: <7C2n9CkGGHelouPii9YA2A.md5@lochnagar.gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:42:30 +0100
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0911091524400.76090@fledge.watson.org> <4B03AD81.9090103@isode.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0911281604410.72535@fledge.watson.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0911281604410.72535@fledge.watson.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:23:07 -0800
Cc: Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org>, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-06
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, 30 Nov 2009 17:41:03 -0000

Samuel Weiler answers Alexey:
>>> Isn't it enough to have them in a consensus doc?")  And how do you 
>>> expect the expert to encourage/enforce the SHOULD, given the 
>>> "favour registering it over requiring perfect documentation" 
>>> guideline?  Again, the current text isn't as clear as I'd like.
>>
>> This is intentional. This is a judgment call by the expert.
>
> This sounds inconsistent.  I'm hearing "it's within the scope of the 
> expert's judgement to require an IETF Consensus doc" and "In cases 
> when an IMAP Keyword being registered is already deployed, Expert 
> Reviewers should favour registering it over requiring perfect 
> documentation."  If I were an implementer who got told "you need a 
> consensus doc", I'd be more than a little tempted to go ahead and 
> deploy, then reapply for the registration.

That's now how it happens. The consensus issues mostly have been about 
naming (different names for the same thing), and IMO were caused by 
lack of knowledge/communication. Merely talking two the expert would 
likely fix most.

Also, I'd like to mention that Lisa asked two people whether they could 
serve; both of her nominees are people who would be likely to give 
helpful answers, not send implementers away with one-sentence answer 
such as "go write a consensus doc".

Arnt