Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call

神明達哉 <> Tue, 04 October 2016 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A8D1295C1 for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8u-vOWK28fsI for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 136C81295A5 for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o68so55495364qkf.3 for <>; Tue, 04 Oct 2016 09:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=3+n2U4H/k8rg4ZC+btGCNup1hEok43inPrJBFSjJkxM=; b=cZ3pLqgALDHrEapMtSwIAVtl2CpSL14Z8YSOQJO2MOLUGH/kKX6e7Q05LgTGoHovtg 3azkhKku4fs7Ex3lFNExDqVwoFVtdAVLdvRtLQrgfEgCD15DTyHc6xjH0/8WFOytO5nr 0Op9Kgv7O/t7fCXDGOEiTIKDAS9xQY2ihLMRHSxNDV6IGf3qHXavn54uhwd6hDUW5MgE ghAiDY+raT+Hfa7KDZsZmxNEoszKL/ss+Erbix24ctqzTdIPO0kMu/X+lotcYPBmaqPC bcEksRNgBVZ6QNIaBldZiDD0LPBB7lKSaCotWYZ1kUmk+7LmMN0bh9nUTV668azhmXEF ifzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3+n2U4H/k8rg4ZC+btGCNup1hEok43inPrJBFSjJkxM=; b=fPslKp0FHMdP0cdIcSmssWr4FZGnC6t0ESiel4559xeMaYS/BtCakUodTo054PXZkv wzkzhdpkKzY0EJjdh+49gIfVSUFZG7zGV09qef9inKPwWx8knq9BDM1xrpBRT4wtRebC lHSKXh3/yXsgQctFk+X+xxpxHfeE7KLo7/PbtUJj/bv85hhajMQa17Hpkbj83WDCLCcW 2wzmrT0rtfwkswWe/IaXbaHBUfXUV9x9EurmK2DRQTkXYQRDHxchZgHFSLiyZKYnVbJ9 C2BBIUndTZmMSP27+21ceDOx+W6/q0twH3A1afz8ylQzKY98smj7mVFuFQ0TAdyYPoPh HNfg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rn0ob5a48OBGctj/4qGxpmjmHsfieAWX97ImMeG0jVgbJilxjzOI1Fe4S/8VpIr3IztEZH2JHLg26az2w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id x194mr4521467qkx.94.1475598897136; Tue, 04 Oct 2016 09:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:34:56 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: x2wQsTlNW0c3NYAIq-NBxtHy9WI
Message-ID: <>
To: Matthijs Mekking <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dnsop <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2016 16:34:59 -0000

At Tue, 4 Oct 2016 14:06:54 +0200,
Matthijs Mekking <> wrote:

> 2. In addition to the first point, I don't think it is appropriate to
> use RFC 2119 keywords to dictate name server configuration. Mentioning
> it would be useful to have configuration options for enabling and
> disabling this functionality seems okay, but drop the RFC 2119 formalities.

I don't have a strong opinion on your suggestion (dropping RFC2119
keywords for configuration) itself.  But I thought this type of text
was pretty common in RFCs.  A quick google pointed to section
of RFC1122:

            This interval MUST be
            configurable and MUST default to no less than two hours.

I believe there are more recent precedents, too.  So the draft text
didn't necessarily look inappropriate to me (whether the requirement
level is appropriate is a different question).

JINMEI, Tatuya