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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 10 June 2015 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 61EDB1A8971; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 cCSF4mca8rAc; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 533DA1A8968; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t5AGUX4M074752 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:30:34 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local
Message-ID: <55786629.6060705@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:30:33 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, Chris Inacio <inacio@cert.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@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>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <24C0D45F-DBF0-43A4-A2D6-B086F7EC368F@cert.org> <55785CA7.4090005@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <55785CA7.4090005@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/tsx9pB6FXz-1qgo17QK2VU6aldY>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:11:48 -0700
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 16:30:43 -0000

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.

/a