[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit

To: Daniel Harkins <dharkins@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:44:10 -0500
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <199704011932.LAA28570@dharkins-ss20>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Dan,

	I was worried about the MUSTs in both documents re auditing and
potential denial of service implications, but chose to copy them and hope
for feedback from the WG. I'd be comfortable with a spec that required
logging if the platform already supported audit, but I'm up in the air re
the right requirement if the platform does not perform audit.  If marking
this case as SHOULD would make folks happy, I'm certainly comfortable with
that sort of change, though I'm not sure what the bottom line effect would
be.

	Thanks for catching the "ICV" vs. "sequence number" check typo.

Steve

References:

MUST vs. SHOULD audit

From: Daniel Harkins <dharkins@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: Re: oakley-03: last call comments
Next by Date: Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
Prev by thread: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
Next by thread: Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread