ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt> (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-21 10:57:22

On 2013-05-21, at 11:56, Keith Moore <moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

On 05/21/2013 11:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2013-05-21, at 11:50, Keith Moore <moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

On 05/21/2013 11:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
With respect to the question of proposed standard. What changes if the 
requested status is informational?
I think just get rid of the normative language - SHOULDs, MUSTs, etc.
From the perspective of giving guidance to people implementing these 
RRTypes, it seems to me that the normative language is useful, perhaps even 
necessary, to ensure interoperability.

I admit I have not done my homework here; is the suggestion that the 2119 
normative language cannot (MUST NOT? :-) appear in an informational document?

2119 language is intended to describe requirements of standards-track 
documents.    Informational documents cannot impose requirements.

Then I think we've just identified a reason why this document should be on the 
standards track.


Joe


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>