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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Fri, 19 September 2008 20:26 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 167293A687D; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:26:51 -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 A48F83A685A for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 U5y27qZZ4bkM for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAEFA3A67D8 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
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 m8JKQGX8009004 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48D40B61.7060201@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:28:17 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <984843C7-BC33-4E48-AC75-414AE86152EF@windriver.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
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

-----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