Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

[David Borman <[e-mail]>]

(WG co-chair hats on)

Wes and I discussed this, and we agree with Lars.  "Updates" is  
generally for things that are now required if you implement the cited  
spec.  Tcpsecure doesn't fit that criteria, so the "Updates 793"  
doesn't belong on this document.  As Lars said, this is less than  
perfect, but it is what we currently have.

FWIW, I could only find one RFC that has "Updates 793", and that is  
RFC 3168, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to  
IP", which allocates two of the reserved flags in the TCP header.

			-David & Wes, TCPM WG co-chairs

On Sep 30, 2008, at 4:43 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:

> Hi,
>
> (individual hat on)
>
> On 2008-9-29, at 20:31, ext Joe Touch wrote:
>> Is it possible that a SHOULD isn't considered a "updates"?
>
> RFC2119 language has nothing to do with the "updates" relationship.  
> It's the applicability that matters.
>
> "Updates 793" on document X means "if you implement 793 you also  
> need to implement X". That is, because "updates" is typically used  
> when a new document fixes critical bugs in an existing specification  
> or adds mandatory new functionality.
>
> For this document the applicability statement is basically "SHOULD  
> implement when vulnerable, MAY otherwise". That's a conditional  
> "updates". Unfortunately, the "updates" header isn't expressive  
> enough to convey this.
>
> We're left with two less-than-optimal choices: Add "updates 793",  
> which doesn't capture the conditional expressed by the applicability  
> statement, or omit "updates 793", which is also inaccurate.
>
> My reason for suggesting to omit the "updates" - and this is a  
> personal preference, I'll respect the WG decision and would like to  
> head other opinions - is that a plain "updates 793" looks like a  
> "you must implement this when implementing 793", and we had a long  
> discussion around the applicability statement that seemed to  
> indicate that the WG didn't want to make this blanket recommendation.
>
> Lars
>
> PS: As an example, look at the recent RFC5348, which is TFRC. It  
> obsoletes RFC3448 (which was the old version of TFRC) but it also  
> updates RFC4342 (DCCP's CCID3), which implements TFRC inside DCCP.  
> The "updates" relationship here means that CCID3 implementations  
> must now (also) implement RFC5348, i.e., the new version of  
> TFRC._______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

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