Re: [dhcwg] [Int-dir] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security-02

[Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 27, 2017, at 3:20 PM, jouni.nospam <jouni.nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I would still argue that it updates specifically if the document here is going to be standards track. If this document here would be more of a recommendation e.g., BCP I would be fine without the “updating” part (as I remember the MUST for IPsec in RFC3315bis was not endorsed by the WG).

Ok, but it's not a BCP, it's a standard, with requirements for interop.   So it can't be a BCP.

Given that it can't be a BCP, the other choices are "informational" and "experimental" and "updates the base spec."   You are saying that you want "updates the base spec," which would mean that everybody would have to implement it to conform to the new, updated spec.   But the argument has been made that this is not desirable: not everybody needs to implement this, and it is not desired that implementing this be a requirement.

So are you saying that you disagree with this—that you think it should be MTI?   Or are you saying that there is some other way to accomplish this goal?