IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rrvs-header-field

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 20 March 2014 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 E8DDE1A0410; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 BPyNdmW3Nat3; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x234.google.com (mail-qa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9899C1A034F; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id m5so1382375qaj.39 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ly0t2Vk8qPp5nAvbF8nHE1Us6tzllmiA5mtbafgW4dM=; b=dZtFQea43bNjR5LGThTv14f8cztXIGtYAuRsIDXhIs6idorcMajgm8G7z5bcki2e3s f8HBlmAekYByiC7bevS4T+3fMbTYOTcGalTBjDkgqqu123b9tNCD7cleUAya/2kiSCOZ LQxD+Whl+poTrtgDeM72YwAv3MqFPe9cofGD8QzTqaTKWZVtQrlN5YKYk9juSixW2egr wLKSjo1rCM9pXaDygq7cJ74L4TTyYTD//Gv+uZOXPDN+0AZ72Hfp1hfaV2kNmq4kVOdM Q78N8C/YkoEspHsl2EM06jBUub1va3My0JlJiM0AnyliCS/8m3/MLA4hV3Xpc9Wkzd/a Ruww==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.157.7 with SMTP id z7mr52974695qaw.37.1395343390400; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.224.42.136 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYLZ58icuUz2y8naHKNyGsqx6nDCs3Q5DGRXG_4jJy6Ag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <187A7B1DA239514F9146FC78B19AADE30B6CAE6A@xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com> <CAL0qLwYqNKmVH8ruEGBoh3A8h04hazda3X2q6ONuQHC4penTCQ@mail.gmail.com> <187A7B1DA239514F9146FC78B19AADE30B6CC737@xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com> <CAL0qLwYNLuUfYCmwV8dnohZEu_yX9Z883dJoMeo+HPis027gDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJLLNoMW=d0078kBOQw0vby-VW3q6A5EbEb9UtiVCk=jfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYLZ58icuUz2y8naHKNyGsqx6nDCs3Q5DGRXG_4jJy6Ag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:23:10 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: gZL6kGrYJV5yAvA4R0sfBtBjohk
Message-ID: <CALaySJJfXEdKQt_g1YpMtEG=PdM1FFoAOkUiJvvTYAM+Zy5yoA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0160a3d01fe75304f50eb359"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/m-6QXVyJFe3rZURsXFNqdevFuos
Cc: "draft-ietf-appsawg-rrvs-header-field.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-appsawg-rrvs-header-field.all@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rrvs-header-field
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, 20 Mar 2014 19:23:21 -0000

Go aheand and post now, so the IESG is reviewing the very latest version.
 T'anks.

b

On Thursday, March 20, 2014, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','barryleiba@computer.org');>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> > I can't recall the exact reason why it's been said that RFC2119 language
>> > ought not be used in Security Considerations (or similar) prose, or
>> which
>> > document's development cycle brought it up, but my general recollection
>> is
>> > that those words were intended to convey aspects of interoperability
>> having
>> > to do with protocol elements, and not otherwise.
>>
>> That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.[1]
>>
>> May I disabuse y'all of that idea forthwith?  Yes?  Good.  Thank you.
>>
> [...]
>>
>
> Given that Shaun's original comment identified these as nits: "What mighty
> contests arise from trivial things."
>
> I've made his changes in the next version, which I'll post after the
> telechat unless you want them sooner.  The only other pending change is a
> language tweak in IANA Considerations that came up during their review of
> that section.
>
> -MSK
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email