Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-05

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 23 November 2012 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5387A21F849E; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 06:50:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.584
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p8GRBOie9hDh; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 06:50:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B1721F8446; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 06:50:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id b47so5862089eek.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 06:50:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lGW9QXEg3l9WbnVronU3KPoJ9/l3+xY6oxdcRpFui2I=; b=XhL/tMCwLBOqWiYmn6t39P8NoIc4tiENDkxlemi3rKfDujO23caba7JnmTAxZW/RR3 GIHzYu0+JlybXlP65M1/sw50MWmWIssaEOo+/ScmXCkY1yUQD8ceiUB0EtHH6gEvrwKV GTbv+Q+UPaWuTFrjR4QeGE9d8jfEBwRBmmWWmOre+IidiUADjPU8sVc2QX9DL5cUVfVk brsH28YCUhyKVPou7Q52nFrxuzmZ5DhmjV2bAMLJnnixpK7J6Drdpj0n7bM51Nd32umb u9qHyDOB8YfdEcwjvpBXyL8/OEYHFA8ktypb7IARwxg3QksAUPOtjF8cpLZEIvJKCT1Z eHPA==
Received: by with SMTP id l48mr14486838een.9.1353682229488; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 06:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id a44sm14050901eeo.7.2012. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 23 Nov 2012 06:50:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:50:42 +0000
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:50:34 -0000

On 23/11/2012 14:26, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> The WG reached consensus on a SHOULD-based version. The whole issue
>> of browser behaviour is contentious, so changing to MUST would be
>> a WG issue, above my pay grade as a document editor. I will wait
>> for instructions.
> Could you
> 1: give us some background on the discussion that resulted in SHOULD
> instead of MUST, and

I don't recall it being explicitly discussed - what I meant is that
this is the text that got through WG last call and post-last-call
discussion, without dissent.

> 2: consider adding explanations of when it would be appropriate to not do a

Yes, this is one of the things I look for when reviewing documents, too ;-)

> For 2, above, there's a great difference between "SHOULD do x unless
> there's some reason that it's impossible in this implementation" and
> "SHOULD do x unless you don't happen to agree with it."  I'd like to try to
> tease those apart.

I'm not a browser implementor, but as far as I can tell, there is a strong
tendency in that community to respect the law of least user astonishment,
so my very personal interpretation is "you SHOULD do this unless experience
shows that it will confuse the user." However, I think the real interpretation
in this case is closer to your first one - do this, because it helps the
user, unless your implementation makes this unreasonable.

Very much IMHO.