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

Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> Thu, 07 March 2019 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <tale@dd.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78969128709 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:29:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5bnuI07rbKtf for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:29:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gro.dd.org (host2.dlawren-3-gw.cust.sover.net [207.136.201.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF4FF124BA8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:28:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gro.dd.org (Postfix, from userid 102) id B0D2B29AE1; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 12:28:57 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <23681.21721.707207.193931@gro.dd.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 12:28:57 -0500
From: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
To: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqdFCSQas3QFvB2pKxu5d16yoNYaJSxrWU-zdjEkXevf7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <155094804613.28045.8648150477440044197@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+nkc8DvZr84E46vna91iBsJ2uSVsda1cCzyTNx9C_J85uKW1w@mail.gmail.com> <23673.27866.35423.674591@gro.dd.org> <FD2C124D-BD1E-41AE-B4AB-007E451A32D6@icann.org> <53DB1048-2B9C-43CA-A6FD-C423DE0254B3@icann.org> <23673.39951.530675.858654@gro.dd.org> <CAJE_bqdFCSQas3QFvB2pKxu5d16yoNYaJSxrWU-zdjEkXevf7A@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/dnmhbPN9Q-eK5V_bqxHDQfw-TKk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.txt [and 1 more messages]
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 17:29:18 -0000

Jinmei:
> 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.

You're in good company in that co-author Puneet has voiced the same
opinion.  

My own take is that it's appropriate because if someone were to go
ahead and directly implement from the example method, then the BCP 14
normative language is appropriate because they are requirements of the
example method.  But that's only my viewpoint without knowing of any
further existing editorial guidance on the matter, and your point is
also sensible in favor of downcasing them as not being BCP 14
"requirements in the specification" in a broader sense.

I'm inclined to leave it to the RFC Editor to adjudicate as to what's best.
Ultimately I'm not passionate about it either way.