Re: draft-hoffman-additional-key-words-00.txt

[Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>]

At 11:10 AM +1300 1/16/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> The careful approach needed for phasing crypto algorithms
> in and out may justify such terminology. However, I think
> there is experience that careless use, in particular of
> SHOULD+, which has crept into some non-IETF documents such
> as procurement specifications, has great potential for
> confusion.  What is a vendor who decides not to implement
> a SHOULD supposed to do about a SHOULD+? If we really want
> to make these terms available to any specification writer,
> I'd want to see more explanatory text of when they're
> appropriate and when they're inappropriate, and how
> an implementor should interpret them.

Yes, that sounds reasonable. I'll prepare an appendix with some 
discussion on this.

> The concept supplements not only RFC 2119 but also the
> discussion of "requirement levels" in RFC 2026 section 3.3.
> I think that should be mentioned.

That section of RFC 2026 talks about Applicability Statements. Does 
that really apply here? I think that the new terms only apply to TSs, 
not ASs.

> We also need to know how they are to be interpreted
> when evaluating a PS for promotion to DS. (Probably there
> is no difference from the regular terms, but it needs
> to be stated).

Good point, added.

> Another thing that's missing is the additional
> boilerplate need in order to cite these terms (i.e.
> an updated version of the boilerplate specified
> in RFC 2119).

Good catch.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf