idnits 2.17.1 draft-hoffman-additional-key-words-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 15. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 160. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 171. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 178. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 184. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2119, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC2119 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). (Using the creation date from RFC2119, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1997-03-01) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (January 15, 2008) is 5945 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4307 (Obsoleted by RFC 8247) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group P. Hoffman 3 Internet-Draft VPN Consortium 4 Updates: 2119 (if approved) January 15, 2008 5 Expires: July 18, 2008 7 Additional Key words to Indicate Requirement Levels 8 draft-hoffman-additional-key-words-00.txt 10 Status of this Memo 12 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 13 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 14 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 15 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 20 Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 18, 2008. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 39 Abstract 41 Some document authors want to express requirement levels using the 42 traditional definitions of "MUST" and "SHOULD" from RFC 2119, but 43 also want to express that there is an expectation that later versions 44 of the document may change those requirements. For example, they may 45 want to express "this SHOULD be implemented now, but we expect that 46 this will become a MUST requirement in a future update to this 47 standard". 49 This document defines three new keywords, "MUST-", "SHOULD+", and 50 "SHOULD-" to facilitate such definitions. 52 1. Introduction 54 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] defines keywords that are used in the RFC series. 55 Using those definitions allows a document writer to specify the 56 requirements level in a generally-understood manner. However, in 57 some protocols, the authors want to convey that the requirements 58 levels are expected to change in the future. 60 There are three requirements level changes that can be easily 61 envisioned: 63 o A MUST requirement that is expected to be demoted to SHOULD in the 64 future. 66 o A SHOULD requirement that is expected to be elevated to MUST in 67 the future. 69 o A SHOULD requirement that is expected to be demoted to MAY in the 70 future. 72 RFC 4307 [RFC4307] defined new terms for these three states. The 73 purpose of defining new terms in RFC 4307 was to alert implementers 74 that there was a widespread expectation that some of the 75 cryptographic algorithms that were listed as SHOULD-level in the 76 document were expected to become MUST-level in a few years; 77 similarly, there was a widespread expectation that some of the MUST- 78 level algorithms would be demoted to SHOULD-level in a few years. 80 Since then, other RFCs and Internet Drafts have re-used those 81 definitions. This document provides stand-alone definitions based on 82 RFC 4307, and explicitly updates RFC 2119. It is important to note 83 that this document does not change any of the definitions in RFC 84 2119; it only adds new ones. 86 2. Definitions of MUST-, SHOULD+, and SHOULD- 88 Three new terms are defined: 90 MUST- This term means the same as MUST. However, the authors 91 expect that this requirement will no longer be a MUST in 92 a future revision of this document. Although its status 93 will be determined at a later time, it is reasonable to 94 expect that if a future update this document alters the 95 status of a MUST- requirement, it will remain at least a 96 SHOULD or a SHOULD-. 98 SHOULD+ This term means the same as SHOULD. However, the authors 99 expect that a requirement marked as SHOULD+ will be 100 promoted at some future time to be a MUST. 102 SHOULD- This term means the same as SHOULD. However, the authors 103 expect a requirement marked as SHOULD- will be demoted to 104 a MAY in a future version of this document. 106 3. Acknowledgements 108 The definitions here are based on those in RFC 4107, which was 109 authored by Jeff Schiller. The genesis for the idea of requirements 110 language that includes foreshadowing of changes came from Russ 111 Housley during the discussion of RFC 4107. 113 4. Security Considerations 115 There are no security considerations specific to the new definitions. 117 5. References 119 5.1. Normative References 121 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 122 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 124 5.2. Informative References 126 [RFC4307] Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the 127 Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 4307, 128 December 2005. 130 Appendix A. Change History 132 [[ This entire section is to be removed upon publication. ]] 133 This is the first version of the document. 135 Author's Address 137 Paul Hoffman 138 VPN Consortium 139 127 Segre Place 140 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 141 US 143 Phone: 1-831-426-9827 144 Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org 146 Full Copyright Statement 148 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 150 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 151 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 152 retain all their rights. 154 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 155 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 156 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 157 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 158 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 159 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 160 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 162 Intellectual Property 164 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 165 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 166 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 167 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 168 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 169 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 170 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 171 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 173 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 174 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 175 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 176 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 177 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 178 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 180 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 181 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 182 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 183 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 184 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 186 Acknowledgment 188 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 189 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).