ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01

2013-05-09 08:07:33


--On Thursday, May 09, 2013 09:28 +0200 Randy Bush
<randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:

Similarly, "wherever possible" is unhelpful; if it's not
possible to fully-qualify a domain name then ambiguity is
guaranteed.

no, that is what SHOLD means.  e.g. when i write docco that
has an ops clause where there is likely a knob or other op
choice, i do not think i have the prerogative to tell the op
how they MUST run their network. but i can say that they
SHOULD do x.

If you are writing a protocol spec and you believe various bad
things can happen to you if partially-qualified names are used,
sure you do.  Whether your belief about possible damage and its
likelihood is reasonable is another question and that, IMO, is
the discussion we should be having.

Now that op has prerogatives too.   Because conformance to IETF
Standards is voluntary, it can ignore the MUST, leaving you the
option of calling the protocol police and/or deciding not to
deal with that op.  Or it could decide to not deal with you
because you make such unreasonable demands.  But neither of
those options deprive you, or the IETF, from saying "MUST" if
you are convinced it is necessary.  IMO, "necessary" should
include interoperability, security, or stable and predictable
operational reasons, despite 2119's apparent restriction to the
first of those.

best,
   john