Re: [tcpm] WGLC: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-10.txt

David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com> Fri, 19 September 2008 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16433A69F3; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7683A69F3 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6KbLN1j2uOEy for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.wrs.com (mail.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 705F63A688B for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-mail03 [147.11.57.144]) by mail.wrs.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m8JKYWld010079; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com ([147.11.57.147]) by ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:34:34 -0700
Received: from [172.25.34.41] ([172.25.34.41]) by ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:34:33 -0700
Message-Id: <D403C6B4-9570-46C9-907D-B83734B39F61@windriver.com>
From: David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <48D40B61.7060201@isi.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:34:31 -0500
References: <FE34F27F-8DDF-4C94-BC6E-E2ABF6000309@windriver.com> <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E409513@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov> <24D2F5D3-93E7-4B64-BA96-2086F3E5754E@windriver.com> <20080906013831.GD2074@zod.isi.edu> <8B8A001A-CA85-407B-9F1A-0FB1D847C21C@windriver.com> <48D3C90A.5050301@isi.edu> <0D2F6D02-8018-4684-B156-9ACC49D5B4E4@windriver.com> <48D3DE00.4060307@isi.edu> <98FC2F4C-9AB5-499F-850F-B73E899851FF@windriver.com> <48D3F7CD.8060006@isi.edu> <984843C7-BC33-4E48-AC75-414AE86152EF@windriver.com> <48D40B61.7060201@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2008 20:34:34.0154 (UTC) FILETIME=[205428A0:01C91A97]
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, rrs@cisco.com, mdalal@cisco.com, "Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <ananth@cisco.com>, Ted Faber <faber@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-10.txt
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

Ok,

(WG chair hat on)

It looks like we have consensus on this.  The wording in the  
Applicability section with SHOULD/MUST is fine, and when I write up  
the proto for passing tcpsecure on to the IESG, I'll include a comment  
that this issue was brought up during WGLC and cite references to  
other RFCs as examples.

			-David Borman

On Sep 19, 2008, at 3:28 PM, Joe Touch wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi, David,
>
> If we have docs we can point to, we're fine. I had questions from  
> others
> on this point; if we have precedent, we're set.
>
> Joe
>
> David Borman wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>> But even if you do view it as a hierarchy, it is nothing out of the
>>>> ordinary.  No optional standard is going to be a MUST for who  
>>>> needs to
>>>> implement it, but then the rest of the standard itself will have  
>>>> still
>>>> have MUSTs in it for how to do the implementation.
>>>
>>> This is the part that others have commented to me on, and the  
>>> primary
>>> point of my note. If we can point to an optional standard that has  
>>> MUSTs
>>> therein, fine. If not, we're blazing new ground.
>>
>> That's easy, just look at any optional standards track RFC.  Here  
>> are a
>> few recent RFCs that I just picked at random:
>>
>> RFC 5001 "DNS Name Server Identifier (NSID) Option"
>> RFC 5007 "DHCPv6 Leasequery"
>> RFC 5010 "The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Version 4 (DHCPv4)
>> Relay Agent Flags Suboption"
>> RFC 5044 "Marker PDU Aligned Framing for TCP Specification"
>>
>> None of these are mandatory, so at best they would be SHOULD for the
>> overall document, and yet they all have MUSTs in them.  Need I go on?
>> The only difference I can see is that these standards don't have
>> explicit SHOULD/MAY in their applicability sections.
>>
>>
>>>> The only thing that
>>>> might be unique here is that the applicability statement has an  
>>>> explicit
>>>> SHOULD/MAY in it; they could be changed to should/may and I don't  
>>>> think
>>>> anything would be lost, but I also think it is fine as it is.
>>>
>>> It would definitely be lost; the doc would then have only MUSTs for
>>> certain items, which are not MUSTs if the overall document is a  
>>> SHOULD.
>>>
>>> This is the punchline; i.e., if we feel that we can't make  
>>> document-wide
>>> recommendations at different levels than individual items, then the
>>> document-wide concern needs to be reflected in the level of  
>>> individual
>>> items, and then I would claim that the current MUSTs should be  
>>> converted
>>> to SHOULDs. (I don't see other impacts).
>>
>> Again, the SHOULD/MAY in the applicability section is about who can
>> benefit from tcpsecure, and has nothing to do with how to implement
>> tcpsecure.  The other MUST/SHOULD/MAYs in tcpsecure are about how to
>> implement tcpsecure.
>>
>> It's "you SHOULD/MAY implement this, but if you do, you MUST do it  
>> this
>> way".  That's just normal standards stuff.
>>
>>            -David Borman
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFI1AthE5f5cImnZrsRAmTuAJ9reCQq4gM4b9Yzbidr61YRrFvbQwCfSkr9
> uf1SV+aHEvZkmsUr9TUIf8A=
> =iUCX
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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