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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

-----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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm