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

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Tue, 02 October 2007 06:19 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 1Icb6s-00031q-LY; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:19:58 -0400
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Icb6q-0002z2-Hc for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:19:56 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Icb6q-0002yf-6S for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:19:56 -0400
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.171] helo=mgw-ext12.nokia.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Icb6m-0000hF-7j for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:19:53 -0400
Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-ext12.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l926JdYI010821; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:19:46 +0300
Received: from esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.34]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:19:28 +0300
Received: from esebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.177]) by esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:19:28 +0300
Received: from mgw-int02.ntc.nokia.com ([172.21.143.97]) by esebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:19:27 +0300
Received: from [192.168.255.2] (essapo-nirac25264.europe.nokia.com [10.162.252.64]) by mgw-int02.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l926JPGb013287; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:19:26 +0300
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580409FF13@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
References: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580409FF13@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Message-Id: <893A41DE-CAE5-4F25-90F2-1C66BDA33E77@nokia.com>
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:19:21 +0300
To: ext Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) <ananth@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Oct 2007 06:19:27.0817 (UTC) FILETIME=[2F8CAB90:01C804BC]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3002fc2e661cd7f114cb6bae92fe88f1
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1276677372=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

On 2007-10-1, at 19:23, ext Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
>> If tcpsecure is a SHOULD then what would be an invalid reason
>> for me to exclude it from my implementation?
>
> It is difficult to say since the implementer is given the choice  
> whether
> or not to include/exclude it.

RFC2026 says:

3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
    may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
    particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
    carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

Some in the IESG have argued that "(...) implications must be  
understood and carefully weighed" means that drafts needs to  
explicitly discuss under what conditions it is OK to disregard a  
SHOULD ("choosing a different course.")

Obviously, few drafts do this. But because we're hung up on what to  
do with this particular draft, following RFC2026 more closely might  
help us make progress.

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