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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 25 September 2007 19:37 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaGEE-0005Y1-9h; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:37:54 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaGEC-0005OO-Ke for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:37:52 -0400
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaGEC-0002yi-8Y for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:37:52 -0400
Received: from [128.9.168.63] (bet.isi.edu [128.9.168.63]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l8PJbbxx021056 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <46F96303.1020701@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:35:31 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
References: <20070924174444.F2C662A7182@lawyers.icir.org> <05fb01c7ff95$ed6cf7e0$0601a8c0@pc6>
In-Reply-To: <05fb01c7ff95$ed6cf7e0$0601a8c0@pc6>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, mallman@icir.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Tom Petch wrote:
> all SHOULDs (I was not at the meeting)
> 
> I have been persuaded in the past, during IETF Last Calls, that  MAY might as
> well be MAY NOT in which case it conveys very little.  If it is worth expressing
> in an RFC, then it is worth a SHOULD.

There are plenty of RFCs that describe MAYs, FWIW. MAY means that it's
permissible and compliant to do something.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG+WMDE5f5cImnZrsRAiXgAJ9gDml6tYxfXo5h1OQ7RW7JkLAUygCgzdHH
bcAFPPWHtx4akV5CUZXdn7M=
=H/Et
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm