Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-04

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 04:00:07PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:

> was probably unwise.  Depending on what the IESG has to say
> (i.e., what Pete tells us), we are contemplating rewriting that
> explanation into RFC 2119 language and simply saying that these
> definitions SHOULD be used in IETF documents and that, if people
> choose to not use them, they MUST define the terms they are
> using exactly and preferably use terminology that does not
> overlap.
> 
> Your thoughts on whether that is a good strategy would be
> welcome.

Either that, or (failing it) adding something the sentence I suggested
(which is just intended to say, "Hey, play nice!"), would be a good
idea, in my opinion.

> that provide normative definitions for terminology used with the
> DNS.  If such a document existed

I'm sure we'd all rejoice were such a document to be written and to
achieve consensus.  But I understand the reasoning.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]