Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

[ I don't need to put on a special "hat" I guess ;-), I am commenting as a individual and not as the author]

To me, "updates" is just a quick reference indicating that the current draft contents updates some of the material of the original draft. Now,, nobody would take this as a recommendation or an implementation advice, IMO. The word "updates" cannot be perceived as an override of the applicability statement or the mitigation strengths decsribed in the draft. Therefore, I don't think that the word "updates" has the effect of "if you implement 793 you should also implement this draft". It also doesn't imply a "blanket recommendation" in any sense.

May be it is a good idea to get the opinions of IESG in this matter ?

Thanks,
-Anantha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Lars Eggert
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 2:43 AM
> To: ext Joe Touch
> Cc: Alfred HÎnes; tcpm@ietf.org; Anantha Ramaiah (ananth); 
> rrs@cisco.com; Mitesh Dalal (mdalal)
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
> 
> Hi,
> 
> (individual hat on)
> 
> On 2008-9-29, at 20:31, ext Joe Touch wrote:
> > Is it possible that a SHOULD isn't considered a "updates"?
> 
> RFC2119 language has nothing to do with the "updates" relationship.  
> It's the applicability that matters.
> 
> "Updates 793" on document X means "if you implement 793 you 
> also need to implement X". That is, because "updates" is 
> typically used when a new document fixes critical bugs in an 
> existing specification or adds mandatory new functionality.
> 
> For this document the applicability statement is basically 
> "SHOULD implement when vulnerable, MAY otherwise". That's a 
> conditional "updates". Unfortunately, the "updates" header 
> isn't expressive enough to convey this.
> 
> We're left with two less-than-optimal choices: Add "updates 
> 793", which doesn't capture the conditional expressed by the 
> applicability statement, or omit "updates 793", which is also 
> inaccurate.
> 
> My reason for suggesting to omit the "updates" - and this is 
> a personal preference, I'll respect the WG decision and would 
> like to head other opinions - is that a plain "updates 793" 
> looks like a "you must implement this when implementing 793", 
> and we had a long discussion around the applicability 
> statement that seemed to indicate that the WG didn't want to 
> make this blanket recommendation.
> 
> Lars
> 
> PS: As an example, look at the recent RFC5348, which is TFRC. 
> It obsoletes RFC3448 (which was the old version of TFRC) but 
> it also updates RFC4342 (DCCP's CCID3), which implements TFRC 
> inside DCCP. The "updates" relationship here means that CCID3 
> implementations must now
> (also) implement RFC5348, i.e., the new version of TFRC.
> 
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm