Re: [lamps] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-06: (with COMMENT)

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 20 June 2018 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2406130F13 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable 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 AXJUBXKi-AKw for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20E38130F1A for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3979300A31 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:01:36 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id KK3bu4eIvYpi for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:01:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.home (pool-71-127-50-4.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.127.50.4]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C41633004FE; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:01:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <7F266684-6F57-4F01-A8A3-CDA82FFE3DE8@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9BCB3FFA-473A-413D-979E-9EF4FC8D27EB"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.4 \(3445.8.2\))
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:01:35 -0400
In-Reply-To: <000701d40843$c29d0b50$47d721f0$@augustcellars.com>
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis@ietf.org
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
References: <152938120582.3146.786592198431535201.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <000701d40843$c29d0b50$47d721f0$@augustcellars.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.8.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/iG149-AdoI6eLybCGZoNzRIInNI>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:01:41 -0000

Ben and Jim:
> 
>> §1.4 (and subsequent change version): I infer from the section titles that the
>> normative keywords in these sections are intended to describe
>> requirements added to those versions, not new requirements in _this_
>> version. It would be better to make that explicit; the body text should stand
>> alone without the titles.
> 
> Yes that is what is intended to be said.  I agree and thus did not use keywords in section 1.6.
> 
> This is historic text copied from a previous version and as such I am slightly reluctant to change.
> EKR and Russ - what do you think?

Picking one example:

   Version 2 attribute certificates SHOULD be supported, and version 1
   attributes certificates MUST NOT be used.

This does accurately reflect the change that was made from S/MIME v3 to S/MIME v3.1.

It could be reworded to avoid the upper case words, but it might loose some important nuance.

For example, it might say instead:

  Encourage the support for version 2 attribute certificates, and
  deprecate support for version 1 attribute certificates.

Is there an IESG preference for the use of upper case words in sections that describe the history of a protocol?

Russ