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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Mon, 29 September 2008 17:32 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 E6B5A3A693C; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:32:04 -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 635BE3A693C for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:32:03 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 gmBYq5olFBiX for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3F63A6870 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [75.215.184.156] (156.sub-75-215-184.myvzw.com [75.215.184.156]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8THVAfT003015 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48E110DE.8050903@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:31:10 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
References: <200808140650.IAA05627@TR-Sys.de> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5805DF435A@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <B35986E6-D8D7-4A9E-B8AB-3DB2E5C3FA29@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <B35986E6-D8D7-4A9E-B8AB-3DB2E5C3FA29@nokia.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alfred_H=CEnes?= <ah@tr-sys.de>, tcpm@ietf.org, "ext Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <ananth@cisco.com>, rrs@cisco.com, "Mitesh Dalal \(mdalal\)" <mdalal@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
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

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