Re: [lamps] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis-06: (with COMMENT)

[Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[e-mail]>]

> — Section 4.1 —
>
>     Tag Length: A single octet containing an unsigned integer specifying
>     the tag length in octets.  The tag length MUST be at least 1 and
>     SHOULD be no more than 15.
>
> What happens if it’s more than 15?  What’s the interoperability issue, and how
> would an implementor decide what to do with this requirement?
Good point. Removed the <15 suggestion.
>
>     Tags MAY contain US-ASCII characters 'a' through 'z', 'A' through
>     'Z', and the numbers 0 through 9.  Tags SHOULD NOT contain any other
>     characters.  Matching of tags is case insensitive.
>
> Why “SHOULD NOT”, rather than “MUST NOT”?  Why might my implementation need to
> use other characters, and what are the interoperability consequences of doing
> so?
Changed to MUST NOT.
> — Section 4.1.1 —
>
>     Tag: Is a non-zero sequence of US-ASCII letters and numbers in lower
>     case.
>
> Make it “non-zero-length”.
Done.
>
> -- Section 4.4 —
>
>     The iodef Property Tag takes a URL as its Property Value.  The URL
>     scheme type determines the method used for reporting:
>
> I presume that *only* the specified schemes (mailto, http, https) are allowed;
> it would help to be explicit about that, lest someone get ideas to use sip or
> some such.
Done.
>
> — Section 5.6 —
>
>     In practice, such an attack would be of minimal effect since any
>     competent competitor that found itself unable to issue certificates
>     due to lack of support for a Property marked critical SHOULD
>     investigate the cause and report the reason to the customer.  The
>     customer will thus discover that they had been deceived.
>
> This doesn’t strike me as a BCP 14 “SHOULD”, but a normal English “should”.
Done.