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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Rob's reasoning here.  Rewording it to something like "ought
to be aware" would be a way around this confusion, but I don't think the
current erratum is correct.  I also don't think there's a lot of evidence
of implementer confusion on this, so I would not be in a hurry to file an
erratum with "ought to be aware" as the suggested text, either.

Just my personal opinion, of course.

Ted

On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 4:02 AM Rob Austein <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>