Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Wed, 30 October 2013 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF53E11E8221 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 06:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.065
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.755, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0eDzr5lWJ3j7 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 06:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (mail-ob0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41DAF11E8220 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 06:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id wp4so1404628obc.40 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 06:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1T+qs5w6M+If+4LPWST8QqZtP5LbU1LU7OF6mj0GOC4=; b=OPf5anBvtuQbb1GNE1Q1e21/BeaeByab+CiBRzoU2tIBJt6hwiwG9sTke4lslfOBOe z46h0L3VeTn2iPzlZRaUErDVq4wGcR/hLxDVmtJo3IIbPDL8r4FSlniROes+uaRDZVU7 ikU1wEMiPQF5/1tE1bK3DtCgwGGyfi1pr6/Xw2nGtl5GnO20o4mGSXf+aoV3T80cFGod MVuZrLbzLk/kBKhzHa29ZOCjgY/0qFMAz4RH1mKHap4ryEfLfwHYy83Iz3rZjEAzatr5 JTKvQ4BwOF+GHPajYqoC77pmk2hhUscYMrJKYg8wmprsxCMTTsX5K20xUym00r8VeZwW 7Lwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkPndN/2G63Ka3Tyb0WiA1UJIwg7C/yXOJ5LBjkrMDpf4YfvgX1T8Aj6a6YyasJ/oZmwuH5
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.99.37 with SMTP id en5mr335743oeb.78.1383140534554; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 06:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.101.10 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 06:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5271051E.4040908@gmx.de>
References: <52700DE4.8020208@bbn.com> <5271051E.4040908@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:42:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgRdWK77ZCu32KA2p3_5+CrmC9v=fyUMBJXgQrT1qSUz4g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d7e43ca2a804e9f58083
Cc: secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, "fielding@gbiv.com" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Mankin, Allison" <amankin@verisign.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "mnot@pobox.com" <mnot@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 30 Oct 2013 13:42:37 -0000

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Stephen,
>
> thanks for the feedback.
>
> On 2013-10-29 20:35, Stephen Kent wrote:
>
>> ...
>> I see that “ought” is used in two places on page 6, but not in uppercase
>> as per RFC 6919. The authors should revisit the use of this term here.
>> ...
>> The end of Section 2.2 includes the word “might” but not uppercase, as
>> per RFC 6919. I again suggest that the authors reconsider using this
>> term in this context.
>> ...
>> Section 5.1.2 uses “ought” when discussing definitions for new
>> authentication schemes. See comments above re use of this term.The same
>> section also uses the phrase “need to” twice, where MUST seems
>> appropriate.
>> ...
>>
>
> We use "ought", "might" etc to disambiguate from RFC2119 keywords. As such
> it's intentional that they are not uppercased, and that we do not reference
> RFC 6919 (which, by the way, is dated April 1st).
>
>
Do you mean that your intent was ought==should and might==may?

Why do you feel the need to avoid SHOULD and MAY here?  They don't place
any more burden on implementors than "ought" and "might".

--Richard



> Best regards, Julian
> ______________________________**_________________
> secdir mailing list
> secdir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/secdir<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/**sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview<http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview>
>