Re: [AFS3-std] Re: Last Call: draft-allbery-afs-srv-records (DNS SRV Res

On 2/4/2010 2:30 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> --On Thursday, February 04, 2010 02:20:27 PM -0500 Jeffrey Altman
> <jaltman(_at_)secure-endpoints(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/4/2010 2:05 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> > > That's not the text we're talking about.
> > Sure.  Context was lost in the thread as the message-ids are not
> > consistent. The text I think is being discussed is not actually in the
> > draft, it is proposed
> > text that Russ put forward on 1 Feb 2010.
> >
> >    DNS SRV RRs, like all DNS RRs, have a time-to-live (TTL), after which
> >    the SRV record information is no longer valid.  As specified in
> >    [RFC1034], DNS RRs SHOULD be discarded after their TTL, and the DNS
> >    query repeated.  This applies to DNS SRV RRs for AFS as to any other
> >    DNS RR.  Any information derived from the DNS SRV RRs, such as
> >    preference ranks, MUST be discarded when the DNS SRV RR is expired.
> >
> > How about:
> >
> >    DNS SRV RRs, like all DNS RRs, have a time-to-live (TTL), after which
> >    the SRV record information is no longer valid.  As implied by
> >    [RFC1034], DNS RRs SHOULD be expired after their TTL, and the DNS
> >    query repeated.  This applies to DNS SRV RRs for AFS as well as any
> > other    DNS RR.  Any information derived from the DNS SRV RRs, such as
> > preference ranks, MUST be discarded when the DNS SRV RR is expired.
> How about "Consistent with [RFC1034]..."?
>
> The problem I have with your text that it could be interpreted as
> merely descriptive of 1034, rather than as prescribing a requirement
> that applies to AFS SRV RR's regardless of how you choose to read 1034.
"Consistent with ... " works for me.

Jeffrey Altman

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf