On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:50:01AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I am having a little trouble reading Appendix A. > > > > If I understand correctly, the idea is: > > > > - In version N, you have a behavior X > > - In version N+1, you introduce a setting S with default value S=X > > - In version N+2 you change the default to S=!X > > > > However, the text says that "installations upgraded from release N+1 > > will adhere to the previous insecure behavior" > > > > Do you need to say that in N+1, you save the value S=X so that in N+1, > > it continues to apply? > > If in N+1 you save S=X, then in N+2, if S is defined as X, behaviour X > will apply.
Well, yes. > If S is not defined, or defined otherwise (like with a fresh > install, not an upgrade), you will have !X behaviour. > Yes. My question is whether in the N+1/N+2 paradigm you are proposing that in N+1 you save S=X. -Ekr > It kind of depends on the implementation and configuration paradigm > whether this advice can be applicable, hence why we flagged it as "This > appendix is non-normative." > > Kind regards, > > Job >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
