IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 06 January 2016 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 232FC1A8768; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 07:32:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2ev6uEpO9tYb; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 07:32:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 405A61A875C; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 07:32:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=906; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1452094324; x=1453303924; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+q+v/tOEdARRvk44IDnJYa5rXJPOxvt5++MVGow4YE0=; b=DUH+nIlfP3Fzd8lV1e8zzn2+VEGFNFHKdLXODEsRf6tv+ztN/ENWuvl6 hwIEOKIClK5B3hXGV2rqYuPQDk5xhNUUP7Y9C+9R17TVp65iO9JXW9FQw UnSe/6CxTV61KRJ544Bv6ZDUJRNWQiV3lPm/mITiK/TPubzrZ2sxHcJ5T 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CoBADNMo1W/xbLJq1ejVKxQoIhgWSGDwKBWxIBAQEBAQEBgQqENQEBBCMVQAEQCxgCAgUWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYBDAgBAYgrsTKQXgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEagQGFVYR/h3OBSQEEh16PLI1VgVyHSoVUhV6EdoNzKAE7hAs9hhUBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,529,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="648297018"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jan 2016 15:32:02 +0000
Received: from [10.149.0.231] (dhcp-10-149-0-231.cisco.com [10.149.0.231]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u06FW2or030882; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 15:32:02 GMT
To: Ray Bellis <ray@isc.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20160106134609.4675.52245.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <568D1B5C.8060205@isc.org>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <568D3371.6020502@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:32:01 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <568D1B5C.8060205@isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Y2omo2iLQAgz0D4ptZw_GFboBug>
Cc: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, rick.casarez@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 15:32:06 -0000

Ray,

I understand this.
My point is that, at some point in time, history doesn't matter any longer.

Regards, Benoit
> On 06/01/2016 13:46, Benoit Claise wrote:
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I was slightly surprised by "implementation requirements" in the title.
>> If we write a RFC, we hopefully hope/require future implementations,
>> right?
>> I understand the willingness to change as little text as possible
>> compared RFC5966, but I would welcome the following update:
> The rationale for the original text in RFC 5966 was that whilst how to
> use TCP was already *specified*, it was often taken as not *required to
> implement*.
>
> IMHO, your proposed alternate text loses that distinction.
>
> kind regards,
>
> Ray
>
>
> .
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email