Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost-05

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Wed, 10 February 2010 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD30C3A75D8 for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:15:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TsxmquEUds7j for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:15:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA4E3A7794 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:15:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp89-089-170.bbn.com ([128.89.89.170]) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1NfIz8-0004Ep-C5; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:16:30 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240800c798b8cd57af@[128.89.89.170]>
In-Reply-To: <20100210190509.GQ5187@shinkuro.com>
References: <p06240810c76be77be756@[128.89.89.161]> <20100107222809.GA25747@shinkuro.com> <p06240818c76c1a38cbf8@[128.89.89.161]> <20100108144431.GB26259@shinkuro.com> <4B5B40FB.8060007@cryptocom.ru> <p0624080bc78249fa2c22@[10.242.22.104]> <4B5D1F85.1070900@cryptocom.ru> <p06240801c7837dde3143@[192.168.0.187]> <4B72F5A7.3050308@cryptocom.ru> <20100210190509.GQ5187@shinkuro.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:26:30 -0500
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Cc: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, Basil Dolmatov <dol@cryptocom.ru>, ogud@ogud.com, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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 Feb 2010 20:15:30 -0000

At 2:05 PM -0500 2/10/10, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 09:06:31PM +0300, Basil Dolmatov wrote:
>>>  I'm glad we agree on this. Since SHOULD is only a slightly-diminished 
>>>  form of MUST, ...
>>  Either SHOULD is the synonym of MUST and then the question rises what it 
>>  is present for if there is no real difference between it and MUST (it 
>>  "should" <grin> be named as obsolete), or SHOULD has it's own meaning 
>>  and should not be treated in discussions as MUST equivalent.
>
>My view has generally been that for each SHOULD, one needs to state
>the cases under which one might not do the named thing.  So it's like
>MUST EXCEPT.  If you want something truly optional, it's MAY.
>
>A

Andrew,

Thanks for a better characterization of SHOULD vs. MUST than what I provided.

Steve