On 2013-05-08, at 17:30, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com> wrote:
At 12:53 08-05-2013, Randy Bush wrote:
MAY != SHOULD
The text is as follows: "The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever
possible". If the working group would like a RFC 2119 SHOULD it would help
if there is an explanation in the sentence for the reader weigh the
implications of not following that.
My knee-jerk reaction is to use MUST. Partially-qualified domain names
are ambiguous at best.
Similarly, "wherever possible" is unhelpful; if it's not possible to
fully-qualify a domain name then ambiguity is guaranteed.
Joe