>> This brings up a common rant that I have: >> We should be putting into our protocol specs what we want the protocol >> to be, not some compromise that comes from knowing that not everyone >> will comply with everything from the start. >> >> If the right thing is to say "MUST encrypt", but we know there'll be a >> transition period during which that's not fully practical, then we >> should say that. Something like this added to Section 3.5.1: >> >> NEW >> In some cases there will be a transition period, in which it might not >> be practical to run with strong encryption right away. It's important >> to keep this period as short as possible, and to upgrade to a fully >> encrypted setup as soon as possible. >> END > > or perhaps more precisely: > > During initialization of nodes there will be a transition period...
Yep; better. > Whether this is phrased as an exception to the MUST or as the justification > for ignoring the SHOULD is a matter of taste, I think. I don't think it's a question of taste. If there's a long-term reason to run nodes without encryption, then SHOULD might make sense. But if we do expect the stable state to always be encrypted, and avoiding it is a short-term expedient that we want to have go away as soon as possible, then the protocol should say MUST, and the exception is clearly specified as a brief thing that mustn't last. It's a substantive difference, not one of writing style. > My thought was that these names will sometimes be visible to humans so why > not allow localized names? If GRASP succeeds it might be used for local > applications, not just generic applications. So I'd rather allow it > from the start, and if we have to add character-set restrictions later, > so be it. Makes sense to me. Carry on. Barry _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
