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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Lars,

Is it possible that a SHOULD isn't considered a "updates"?

I.e., there are different issues:

	a) this doc does change the core 793 spec
	b) this doc is optional

(b) argues that we really ought not be using SHOULD, but rather MAY, for
the whole document. I've made that point before, but the label "updates"
may motivate revisiting that issue.

IMO, MAYs don't update, MUSTs definitely do. I don't know where SHOULDs
fall, though.

I.e., I would be comfortable with the current recommendation (SHOULD,
and not "updates"), but if SHOULD implies "updates", I'd suggest
considering going to a level of recommendation that does NOT update 793
(e.g., MAY, if that even suffices).

Joe

Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> (individual hat on)
> 
> On 2008-9-29, at 0:08, ext Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
>> In particular, regarding your observation of mentioning what the
>> document is doing, I agree that we should mention that it "updates
>> 793". I am hoping that nobody has any objection to this point.
> 
> since this document specifies an optional component to TCP, I'd argue
> that it should not update RFC793. If you look at the RFC Editor page,
> almost no other RFC updates RFC793, because even widely-deployed
> extensions (timestamps, SACK, etc.) are all optional. Even RFC2581
> doesn't update RFC793.
> 
> Lars
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjhEN4ACgkQE5f5cImnZruuVACg9GiRCyUrI9O51lHcEUOVzoIf
heoAmwRbcNUcJ15slOox/D0A/homk1vm
=O+z6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm