RE: R: R: a question about IETF draft location conveyance 09

This just seems to me to be an inappropriate change of RFC
2119 language. 

If we really mean either of these, then we should be
specifying that the message is encrypted in the first
place.

What we probably mean is something informative (because we
cannot make a normative statement on what applications do
with the data), stating that usage of the message so tagged
is inappropriate because the sender did not intend it to be
used for this purpose.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: daniel grotti [mailto:daniel.grottiunibo.it]

> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 11:38 AM
> To: Dean Willis
> Cc: IETF SIP List; James M. Polk
> Subject: R: R: R: [Sip] a question about IETF draft
location 
> conveyance 09
> 
> I know. 
> May be SHOULD NOT instead MUST NOT could be better.
> 
> daniel
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------
>        Daniel  Grotti
> D.E.I.S. - University of Bologna
> ----------------------------------
>        Via Venezia, 52
>   47023 Cesena (FC) - ITALY
> ----------------------------------
> e-mail: daniel.grottiunibo.it
> ---------------------------------- 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Dean Willis [mailto:dean.willissoftarmor.com]
> Inviato: sab 24/11/2007 2.32
> A: daniel grotti
> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; IETF SIP List; James M. Polk
> Oggetto: Re: R: R: [Sip] a question about IETF draft
location 
> conveyance 09
>  
> 
> On Nov 22, 2007, at 12:08 PM, daniel grotti wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > so why don't emphasize this point in the next
draft, saying :  
> > "Proxy server MUST not read messages with
"recipient=endpoint"  
> > paramenter setted".
> > This is my point of you.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> because from a security standpoint, this prohibition is
meaningless.  
> Intermediate nodes can and will read anything that's in

> plaintext, and SOMEBODY will come up with a rationale,
in 
> some context or another, for doing so.
> 
> And has been pointed out, doing so does not appear to
create 
> a compatibility problem. It doesn't break the protocol.
It 
> might defeat security-through-obscurity. It might be
rude, or 
> otherwise socially unacceptable. But those don't
qualify for 
> a MUST level protocol prohibition.
> 
> --
> Dean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP
Protocol Use 
> sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip 
> Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the
application of sip
> 


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip