Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?

[Mark Allman <[e-mail]>]

Hat off ... 

This is a lot of hang wringing mumbo-jumbo, I think.  It seems to me ...

  + If a standards track document says "a TCP SHOULD do X" then as a
    particular TCP evolves it really ought to do X unless the
    implementers have a very good reason not to do X.

  + If a standards track document says "a TCP MAY do X" then as a
    particular TCP evolves the implementers have discretion to do X or
    not to do X based on their understanding of the issues.

  + If a standards track document says "a TCP SHOULD do X subject to
    conditions Y or scope Z" then as a particular TCP implementation
    evolves it really ought to do X if it falls within the given
    conditions or scope.

Why is this harder than that?

Hat on ...

It seems that currently the first two bullets apply to tcpsecure.  That
is, the document does not have any scoping or conditions.  Lars (and
others) has suggested that perhaps we need to add some scoping to the
document through an applicability statement.  That is certainly an
option.  If folks think that we should be adding such an applicability
statement before worrying about SHOULD vs. MAY then please say so.  (It
seems to me that thus far that has been a minority position.  I am happy
to change my view of this based WG input, naturally.)

allman

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm