[dnsext] Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4035 (7972)

[Rob Austein <[e-mail]>]

> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Nate Choe <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: 4.2
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>    Security-aware resolvers MAY query for missing security RRs in an
>    attempt to perform validation; implementations that choose to do so
>    must be aware that the answers received may not be sufficient to
>    validate the original response.  For example, a zone update may have
>    changed (or deleted) the desired information between the original and
>    follow-up queries.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    Security-aware resolvers MAY query for missing security RRs in an
>    attempt to perform validation; implementations that choose to do so
>    MUST be aware that the answers received may not be sufficient to
>    validate the original response.  For example, a zone update may have
>    changed (or deleted) the desired information between the original and
>    follow-up queries.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> "MUST" is a key word according to RFC 2119/BCP 14 and should be capitalized.

Well, it's been nearly twenty years, and I don't feel terribly
strongly about this, but since Nate raised the point:

I think I disagree.  "MUST" is keyword, "must" is not.  It probably
would have been advisable to avoid the non-keyword "must" due to the
risk of this confusion, but "MUST be aware" does not seem actionable
to me, nor does it seem likely to be what the author of the original
text (who may or may not have been me) intended.

So I would reject this erratum, but as noted above, I don't feel
strongly about this, and will not stand in the way if the (long
disbanded) WG or my co-editors (most of whose contact information has
probably changed by now) agree with Nate.