Re: [TLS] Chatter on consensus

Martin Rex <> Wed, 27 January 2010 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BCBF3A690B for <>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:08:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.249
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Sq2BIaOKYvJ for <>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:08:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE453A68C4 for <>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:08:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (26) with ESMTP id o0RF98W1021223 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:09:08 +0100 (MET)
From: Martin Rex <>
Message-Id: <>
To: (Kemp, David P.)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:09:07 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To: <> from "Kemp, David P." at Jan 27, 10 09:39:34 am
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Scanner: Virus Scanner virwal05
X-SAP: out
Subject: Re: [TLS] Chatter on consensus
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:08:56 -0000

Kemp, David P. wrote:
> As noted earlier, I think -03 has already gotten it right in
> terms of normative requirements -- MUST NOTs.  I have no position
> on whether informative text should continue to be refined.

These two MUST NOTs and the two unexplained NOT RECOMMENDEDs
to which I'm opposed are clear violations of rfc-2119 section 6:

6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives

   Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
   and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
   actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
   potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)  For
   example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
   on implementors where the method is not required for