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

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Wed, 10 June 2015 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 16EE31B33ED; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 Vyt_mly73Ut7; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90A971B2E90; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [81.187.2.149] (port=48437 helo=[192.168.0.24]) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1Z2kgq-0002ER-DW; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:25:30 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <55786629.6060705@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:25:15 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1F558D60-16EB-40B5-B7F8-C51FC2CE604B@csperkins.org>
References: <24C0D45F-DBF0-43A4-A2D6-B086F7EC368F@cert.org> <55785CA7.4090005@ericsson.com> <55786629.6060705@nostrum.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/jKYHymt_e8LV1ukJp8cnGNGQGBw>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23@tools.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: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:25:37 -0000

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/