Re: [secdir] [rtcweb] sector review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 11 June 2015 08:08 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 957861ACD0D; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 8BBGQSgoEjOY; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABB9D1AC3B6; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.122]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id C61CFEC0798C; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:08:25 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t5B88O61016691 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:08:25 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.203]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:08:08 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] sector review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23
Thread-Index: AQHQo5UyIGbw77cZCECqEegNh+rEXZ2lzNmAgAAgDICAAQbP0A==
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:08:08 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B69728E95@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <24C0D45F-DBF0-43A4-A2D6-B086F7EC368F@cert.org> <55785CA7.4090005@ericsson.com> <55786629.6060705@nostrum.com> <1F558D60-16EB-40B5-B7F8-C51FC2CE604B@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <1F558D60-16EB-40B5-B7F8-C51FC2CE604B@csperkins.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.38]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/Y4JuuHcbqd0WyrML0iSQv9FY2sk>
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23@tools.ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [rtcweb] sector review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23
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: <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: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:08:31 -0000

I support Colin on this.

Using lower case versions of RFC 2119 terms causes its own confusions.

It is usually easy to maintain clarity while avoiding this.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Colin Perkins
> Sent: 10 June 2015 19:25
> To: Adam Roach
> Cc: secdir@ietf.org; rtcweb@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; 
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23@tools.ietf.org; Chris Inacio
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] sector review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23
> 
> On 10 Jun 2015, at 17:30, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:
> > On 6/10/15 10:49, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> >>> page 6:
> >>> 
> >>> "This specification requires the usage of a single CNAME 
> when sending
> >>> RTP Packet Streams..."   should the "require" be "REQUIRE"?
> >> 
> >> This is intended as an informational reference, thus I 
> propose to change this to "mandates" thus avoiding the RFC2119 terms.
> > 
> > RFC 2119 doesn't remove the words "require", "must", 
> "should", "may" and "recommend" from the English language. If 
> all you mean is the ordinary word "require," (rather than the 
> 2119 term "REQUIRE"), then "require" is just fine.
> 
> The RFC 2119 term is "REQUIRED", not "REQUIRES" or "REQUIRE" 
> anyway, but we have explicitly avoided lower-case versions of 
> RFC 2119 terms in the draft, precisely to avoid any possible 
> confusion.
> 
> --
> Colin Perkins
> https://csperkins.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>