--On Wednesday, February 03, 2010 03:27:01 PM -0800 Russ Allbery
<rra(_at_)stanford(_dot_)edu> wrote:
SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> writes:
At 17:03 01-02-10, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ah, thank you. Changed to SHOULD on the assumption that the (pre-2119)
language in RFC 1034 was intended to have roughly the same meaning.
"SHOULD" as a requirement first appeared in RFC 1122. It does not
necessarily apply to RFCs published before RFC 2119.
I guess I'm not clear on what you think the correct fix is. I'm hesitant
to use a lowercase "should" in a document that explicitly references RFC
2119, since then it's ambiguous what that is supposed to mean in terms of
a standard requirement.
Agree. I think we want to elevate this to SHOULD in this case, even if the
original 1034 requirement was not that strong. Clients failing to operate
this way presents real operational problems for AFS cell administrators. I
would suggest a slight rewording, so that the present text cannot be read
to imply that 1034 says "SHOULD" in the 2119 sense, when in fact it is
somewhat more ambiguous.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf