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

Basil Dolmatov <dol@cryptocom.ru> Wed, 10 February 2010 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <dol@cryptocom.ru>
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 01CBF3A77A5 for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:32:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.729, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_RU=0.595, HOST_EQ_RU=0.875, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457]
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 Oy2JvEgtUOne for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:32:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.cryptocom.ru (mx.cryptocom.ru [89.188.97.107]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C6C03A7607 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:32:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.63.201] (ppp91-76-231-25.pppoe.mtu-net.ru [91.76.231.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.cryptocom.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04D646567; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:33:24 +0300 (MSK)
Message-ID: <4B732624.7040303@cryptocom.ru>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:33:24 +0300
From: Basil Dolmatov <dol@cryptocom.ru>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@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> <20100210190509.GQ5187@shinkuro.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100210190509.GQ5187@shinkuro.com>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:21:48 -0800
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 21:32:25 -0000

Andrew Sullivan пишет:
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.  
  
Could you be so kind to point to a couple of examples of such usage of SHOULD in IETF documents?
Where SHOULD is used and exceptions  are clearly listed.

That will help to understand the situation with this verb better.
Thanks in advance,

dol@