Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.txt [and 1 more messages]

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:54:39 -0500,
Dave Lawrence <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > I'm not sure a standards track document that updates RFC 1034/1035
> > should be recommending a minimum TTL.
>
> As previously noted, we're making no such recommendation and that will
> be clarified.  The first definition of "resolution recheck timer" in
> section 5 does already say that it regards failed lookups, but it
> seems that adding that distinction later is also warranted.
>
> > The document is actively confusing about recommendations.
>
> Before we go pushing around whole sections of text, could anyone
> please comment on whether they find it "actively confusing about
> recommendations"?

FWIW: "actively confusing" may be too strong, but I also found it
confusing on my fresh re-read of serve-stale-03 in that the "example
method" section contains normative descriptions using RFC2119
keywords.

So I support Paul's proposal:

>> Proposal: Put all recommendations in Section 4, and talk about them
>> (instead of introducing them) in the other sections. That way, a
>> lazy developer who only reads Section 4 will know all the
>> recommendations.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya