Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost-05

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Wed, 10 February 2010 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@shinkuro.com>
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 511543A7040 for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:04:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.186
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.413, 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 9hQFSE55NKsI for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:04:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E1B3A6C7F for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:04:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6ADE1ECB4E8; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:05:11 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:05:09 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: Basil Dolmatov <dol@cryptocom.ru>
Message-ID: <20100210190509.GQ5187@shinkuro.com>
References: <p06240810c76be77be756@[128.89.89.161]> <20100107222809.GA25747@shinkuro.com> <p06240818c76c1a38cbf8@[128.89.89.161]> <20100108144431.GB26259@shinkuro.com> <4B5B40FB.8060007@cryptocom.ru> <p0624080bc78249fa2c22@[10.242.22.104]> <4B5D1F85.1070900@cryptocom.ru> <p06240801c7837dde3143@[192.168.0.187]> <4B72F5A7.3050308@cryptocom.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B72F5A7.3050308@cryptocom.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Cc: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, ogud@ogud.com, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost-05
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: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:04:02 -0000

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 09:06:31PM +0300, Basil Dolmatov wrote:
>> I'm glad we agree on this. Since SHOULD is only a slightly-diminished  
>> form of MUST, ...
> Either SHOULD is the synonym of MUST and then the question rises what it  
> is present for if there is no real difference between it and MUST (it  
> "should" <grin> be named as obsolete), or SHOULD has it's own meaning  
> and should not be treated in discussions as MUST equivalent.

My view has generally been that for each SHOULD, one needs to state
the cases under which one might not do the named thing.  So it's like
MUST EXCEPT.  If you want something truly optional, it's MAY.

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.