IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Section 4.2 follow-up

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 22 November 2017 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73301127869 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:58:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WBeXHAgnOJo1 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x236.google.com (mail-yw0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B701F126D74 for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x236.google.com with SMTP id c195so4563081ywh.10 for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:58:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xuIE9DBgwXar8rTUSAvKEBnvliXwFiObgNR3bOif6m8=; b=Kz+39XmTAANbrfoa4MHE/Img9ea/NPf7cLl+CQYt5Fpq6kgKTeIYf2rrjjzB0gis3r /rDtL+LpO/bwcpcTb2yswHrzJL4YVScka5Wu22OfFQu9szpDy7iVYIgGPoHgxDjvxPhp y9CBWOek8k+hgRomZyUCLK46jOWlcz8ghEFm1NSFWZt0URQIqTFizlH7+jDqdGlFVC7l 0jaxzA8fjDFcUHEe7cIrBUUGNT7HpFIxuAPHkIgx4XM/kGjVMbhjHOffFpItoNJ534Z/ UoVH0S88W8vf9gv2qPda+70xnSwFHZJ0hTDzFTBb5Va1OF58j10FGvdK0XWP+wq51N39 jg1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xuIE9DBgwXar8rTUSAvKEBnvliXwFiObgNR3bOif6m8=; b=MYLYvVi5IUnfJ4iL6vb7JGTR5kKQDPqTuU0M8lxRTBSoQhSSB3fiDUZ0vVdlmShXxa ea2EobNQFOqdbwIhU89NZmLex0ImstDuCeMPdhLMevQD6BSMsbOtzoiZEMVlD0NCpNZB aWUMD3rGYBhhXX6KuaQs/RI30rT1Rb1x4jDwt0NtTqtXEcw4dIft9+tHnIByfC5xNw12 uURXyrn4b16sAnl/ygugvYUIpWALCU+FdW8lwCLsRyg3Pe0TQs/JrZRtDnswQje4J4Co MORO52UmlF3NFV5Tl8I/EY/p0VquQaL9ZZljg/Ju4IYbwSI7r0dzIW8Jhm2orQS+G6Fb jddA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5FY9R8V6eB7Akafl4Jzkioisbuw85BWk15I9hRZXPFPG1DtKt5 wqpyFfuYolqjfpFgfAxoQrNSzxMgDTOvuEmYQa1rDw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYLp/36xFsG5WdZTMPdvLbzoJEshq9BsIH5DlIgfcPebixtO9G+8dhQoHy9MUtHdF39Lmebr5fn1bA27fnLvfk=
X-Received: by 10.129.87.210 with SMTP id l201mr14260402ywb.2.1511369932364; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:58:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.123.132 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:58:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <f284f289-0468-5b2f-f073-2b3022158ea0@comodo.com>
References: <CALzYgEcnUe=0=vE9sw4Ee0H_94w6mv5F2=T-1rtK51WHHeqUbg@mail.gmail.com> <CACM=_OcS2zvQ1O_-YqiNFOg9PYn=jATp6dMmp6qS-maQMtoOOQ@mail.gmail.com> <f284f289-0468-5b2f-f073-2b3022158ea0@comodo.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:58:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNafvFdEA6ZEotad1VWUb9a0PLf8-etw1wR-ppnxB7Gww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>
Cc: Al Cutter <al@google.com>, Eran Messeri <eranm@google.com>, Trans <trans@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11457576f186cb055e953b2f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/6z0ZctgOgv8vcZaunIa7NXRLey0>
Subject: Re: [Trans] Section 4.2 follow-up
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:58:57 -0000

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>
wrote:

> On 21/11/17 19:33, Al Cutter wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Eran Messeri <eranm@google.com <mailto:
>> eranm@google.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     [shortening subject]
>>
>>     Two MUSTs are being discussed:
>>     (1) "the log MUST NOT accept any submission until it has verified ..."
>>
>>
>> Actually it's just this one, I think the one below was included possibly
>> by mistake (I mentioned to that to Rob when I spotted it on the PR).
>>
>
> Yeah, I misunderstood which MUSTs (in section 4.2) EKR (and Al) thought
> should be SHOULDs.
>
> I've updated the PR.  This discussion is now only about whether or not
> that first "MUST NOT" should be changed to "SHOULD NOT".
>
> From the discussion on the PR, it seems that:
>   - Eran and Andrew strongly prefer "MUST NOT".
>   - EKR wrote "this is a WG decision" and so I presume he'll accept either
> "MUST NOT" or "SHOULD NOT".
>

I'll accept MUST NOT as long as the MUST NOT is unambiguous. I thought it
was but the discussion in the PR suggests that it's not because we don't
know what the lax validation exception covers. As long as you have clarity
on that point then SHOULD NOT/MUST NOT is totally up to the WG.

-Ekr





>   - Al is the sole proponent of changing it to "SHOULD NOT".
>
> Al, can you live with "MUST NOT"?
>
> --
> Rob Stradling
> Senior Research & Development Scientist
> COMODO - Creating Trust Online
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Trans mailing list
> Trans@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email