Subject: Re: [lamps] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-samples-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 15:49:12 -0500

On Wed 2022-01-05 06:55:02 -0800, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote:
> Only one minor nit on the security considerations:
>
>    Any application which maintains a denylist of invalid key material
>    SHOULD include these keys in its list.
>
> Having this as a SHOULD seemed very broad to me, I would suggest "recommended to" instead.

I'm happy to move this from "SHOULD" to "should" (no need for the RFC
2119 keyword here), but "recommended to" doesn't parse for me -- either
we say "is recommended to" (but then we're using the passive voice with
no actor) or we rework the whole sentence to something like "This draft
recommends any application…" which also feels clunky.

Hopefully the move from "SHOULD" to "should" works for you, Robin!

Thanks for the review.

          --dkg