Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with COMMENT)
"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 07 January 2016 14:53 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 321EE1A8AE5; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 06:53:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 RJN0rwEjQuCt; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 06:53:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 321761A8AE6; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 06:53:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.10] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u07EroaO013287 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Jan 2016 08:53:51 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.10]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: sara <sara@sinodun.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 08:53:51 -0600
Message-ID: <C0E7B140-D45D-43A7-8D8A-2677A51A1756@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <796CEF87-D9B2-4EBF-A5B4-9E93F5E385D8@sinodun.com>
References: <20160106214436.6383.91776.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <796CEF87-D9B2-4EBF-A5B4-9E93F5E385D8@sinodun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.3r5187)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/gUqVKA1TlQBaO-ErRtC6kOiJPUo>
Cc: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's Yes 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: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:53:53 -0000
On 7 Jan 2016, at 6:56, sara wrote: >> === Editorial=== >> -1: "... TCP is henceforth a REQUIRED ..." >> Since the normative language is strengthened in section 5, the >> REQUIRED >> seems redundant here. I'd suggest stating this without the 2119 >> keyword. > > > This mimics exactly what was done in the original RFC5966 to state the > main point of the document early on. I would argue for leaving the > language as explicit (even if redundant) rather than make it vaguer… It is not critical either way, but IIRC section 5 added more (and stronger) normative language than was in 5966, right? So the REQUIRED in section 5 is less needed now.