On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 at 19:06, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Yes. Do you have a proposed sentence that should be added if this isn't clear? Kind regards, Job
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
