IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-04

Daniel Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> Wed, 04 July 2018 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dharkins@lounge.org>
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 5CC5F13108F; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 12:46:16 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 NKqHiwU9hHWl; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 12:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.goatley.com (www.goatley.com [198.137.202.94]) (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 9F86013108C; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 12:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from trixy.bergandi.net ([76.93.146.89]) by wwwlocal.goatley.com (PMDF V6.7-x02 #1001) with ESMTP id <0PBC0050FXL11V@wwwlocal.goatley.com>; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 14:46:13 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from thinny.local ([69.12.173.8]) by trixy.bergandi.net (PMDF V6.7-x01 #1001) with ESMTPSA id <0PBC0075XXKR7M@trixy.bergandi.net>; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 12:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 69-12-173-8.static.dsltransport.net ([69.12.173.8] EXTERNAL) (EHLO thinny.local) with TLS/SSL by trixy.bergandi.net ([10.0.42.18]) (PreciseMail V3.3); Wed, 04 Jul 2018 12:46:04 -0700
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 12:46:10 -0700
From: Daniel Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
In-reply-to: <20180704183436.zjzwz4vowqi5phz7@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
To: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf.all@ietf.org
Message-id: <14e7ae2d-90ae-32c5-c814-a2d31e9f1a4e@lounge.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
X-PMAS-SPF: SPF check skipped for authenticated session (recv=trixy.bergandi.net, send-ip=69.12.173.8)
X-PMAS-External-Auth: 69-12-173-8.static.dsltransport.net [69.12.173.8] (EHLO thinny.local)
References: <f919a44f-d93b-f399-cc5d-1353c1c5b57d@lounge.org> <20180704124128.qpr7tunjw5quiex6@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <9b2f8091-9ead-e188-ee34-1acfead2dcd2@lounge.org> <20180704183436.zjzwz4vowqi5phz7@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
X-PMAS-Software: PreciseMail V3.3 [180703] (trixy.bergandi.net)
X-PMAS-Allowed: system rule (rule allow header:X-PMAS-External noexists)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/tdJMkYiSyiEKwJAtKogiT-1-NCY>
Subject: Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 04 Jul 2018 19:46:17 -0000

On 7/4/18 11:34 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 11:08:10AM -0700, Daniel Harkins wrote:
>>
>>    I'm suggesting SHOULD _or_ MAY and I thought where would be obvious.
>> It is the places that say "optional to support" in 3.2.1. and 3.2.2 as
>> I indicated. For example, 3.2.1 says,
>>
>>     The "with-defaults" query parameter ([RFC8040], Section 4.8.9 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8040#section-4.8.9>) is
>>     optional to support when interacting with {+restconf}/ds/ietf-
>>     datastores:operational.
>>
>> 3.2.2 has similar text. As to why, it is for consistency and clarity in
>> expressing what you want.
>>
> What is unclear about 'optional to support'? RFC 8040 uses similar
> language and I do not recall that anyone had a problem with this so
> far.

   If you want to reject my comment then just reject my comment. It was made
in the spirit of improving your draft which apparently you take issue with
for some bizarre reason. If someone outside the RFC 8040 bubble you seem 
to be
living in found the wording lacking in clarity then it would seem logical to
infer that maybe others might too. Just a thought.

   Dan.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email