Re: Other comments on draft-ietf-secsh-publickey-subsystem

[Joseph Galbraith <galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost>]

Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > "Jon" == Jon Bright <jon%siliconcircus.com@localhost> writes:
>     >> - I'd rather the "mandatory" attribute of attributes be named
>     >> "critical"...
>
>     Jon> This would change a sentence like "If the server does not
>     Jon> implement a mandatory attribute, it MUST fail the add.." to
>     Jon> "If the server does not implement a critical attribute, it
>     Jon> MUST fail the add..".  The first seems preferable to me.
>
> My personal opinion is that critical is far preferable to mandatory in
> a security protocol.  The usage you seem to be objecting to is quite
> common in PKIX documents and is becoming more common in Kerberos
> documents and other things throughout the security area.
>
> I didn't make the common as an AD because I thought it a bit late, but
> I support this change as an individual.

I don't have any objection one way or the other-- however, if
"critical" is becoming part of the 'standard writing language'
for security documents, we should probably adopt that standard.

Thanks,

Joseph