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

"Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <Wesley.M.Eddy@nasa.gov> Fri, 19 September 2008 17:04 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 BD5FF3A6A4C; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:04:21 -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 2B4633A6A4C for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 A6gZJNcXsu4f for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ndjsnpf03.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsnpf03.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.1.123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40763A6B01 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ndjsppt02.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsppt02.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.1.101]) by ndjsnpf03.ndc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D1B2D818D; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:04:23 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ndjsxgw03.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsxgw03.ndc.nasa.gov [129.166.32.111]) by ndjsppt02.ndc.nasa.gov (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m8JH4SWZ015464; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:04:28 -0500
Received: from NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov ([129.166.32.124]) by ndjsxgw03.ndc.nasa.gov with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:04:27 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:04:26 -0500
Message-ID: <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E503124@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <0D2F6D02-8018-4684-B156-9ACC49D5B4E4@windriver.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] WGLC: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-10.txt
Thread-Index: AckadaWGB4AuzLKJT66VOgiwEN0qVwAAzWRA
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>
From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <Wesley.M.Eddy@nasa.gov>
To: "David Borman" <david.borman@windriver.com>, "Joe Touch" <touch@isi.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2008 17:04:27.0723 (UTC) FILETIME=[C64F71B0:01C91A79]
Cc: Ted Faber <faber@isi.edu>, rrs@cisco.com, tcpm@ietf.org, "Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <ananth@cisco.com>, mdalal@cisco.com
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

>-----Original Message-----
>From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On 
>Behalf Of David Borman
>Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 12:33 PM
>
>(WG chair hat off)
>
>The SHOULD/MAY in the applicability statement is about who benefits  
>most from tcpsecure, and in the rest of the document the MUST/SHOULD/ 
>MAY are about implementing tcpsecure.  We (the WG) wanted the  
>distinction in the applicability statement about which 
>situations will  
>benefit the most from tcpsecure.
>
>So for this issue, I think the document is fine as is.


I'm personally in agreement.  I don't find it confusing at all, since
it's clear that if you choose not to take the upper SHOULD path, then
the set of dependent MUSTs don't apply; but I also read requirements
documents frequently, so YMMV :).

I don't, personally, think this issue is worth fretting over.
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm