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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Mitesh Dalal (mdalal) wrote:
> well said Edward! I concur with your take on this and was alluding to
> the same ideas that you mentioned below. To highlight your comment
> again:
> 
>> In particular 
>> there is confusion between discussing whether implementing 
>> tcpsecure itself is mandatory / recommended / optional vs. 
>> whether some feature of tcpsecure is mandatory / recommended 
>> / optional, given that tcpsecure itself is implemented.
> 
> 
> I think it does captures the debate we are having here. My
> opinion is that if we view these changes as Updates to RFC793, then
> they may be perceived as mandatory changes and again open discussions
> around IPR, MAY/SHOULD/MUST language and so on. However if we have
> a  banner statement stating that implementing these changes are
> recommended/optional and enumerate situations in which they are 
> helpful this should alleviate a lot of opposing view.  And
> once we have this statement and if a tcp implementation does decide
> to have this feature then it MUST be this way for the feature to work
> correctly.\

I think we agree that there are two levels of language needed:

1) for the entire system
	for which I think MAY is appropriate,
	and the conditions when useful would be beneficial to note

2) for the components, once you decide to implement
	MUST/MAY/SHOULDs as needed there. there seem like there are
	a few MAYs for various parts, MUSTs for others;
	it's not all MUSTs, but I don't think there will be
	deep discussions about this

Joe

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