Re: [dnsext] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4343 (5112)

"John Levine" <> Tue, 12 September 2017 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95727132F64 for <>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 15:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 96Flj8mkAQQG for <>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 15:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80FC312421A for <>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 15:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 48205 invoked by uid 125); 12 Sep 2017 22:18:27 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 12 Sep 2017 22:18:27 -0000
Date: 12 Sep 2017 22:15:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20170912221500.1622.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4343 (5112)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:18:30 -0000

I would reject this or at most mark it as hold for update.  The word
"should" in lower case appears in two other places where it's not used
in the 2119 sense, and I think this one is not intended to be the 2119
sense either.  The sentence in question is describing the historical
situation, and the following capital MUSTs tell you what to do.  

Having said that, if we ever revisit this document, it would benefit
from rewording to make it clearer when it is telling you what to do
and when it's just giving background.


In article <> you write:
>The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4343,
>"Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity Clarification".
>You may review the report below and at:
>Type: Editorial
>Reported by: Change "should" to must in section 3.(no subsection) <>
>Section: 3
>Original Text
>comparisons on name lookup for DNS queries should be case insensitive
>Corrected Text
>comparisons on name lookup for DNS queries must be case insensitive
>Some authoritative DNS servers and/or mitigation devices/software silently drop queries that have
>uppercase letters in them.  Furthermore, the clarification of the case insensitive comparison in the
>following two sentences after that particular sentence use the term MUST.  I suspect some readers of the
>RFC are reading the word "should" and aren't reading the rest of the paragraph.
>This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
>can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
>RFC4343 (draft-ietf-dnsext-insensitive-06)
>Title               : Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity Clarification
>Publication Date    : January 2006
>Author(s)           : D. Eastlake 3rd
>Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>Source              : DNS Extensions
>Area                : Internet
>Stream              : IETF
>Verifying Party     : IESG
>dnsext mailing list