Re: [AFS3-std] Re: Last Call: draft-allbery-afs-srv-records (DNS SRV Resource Records for AFS) to Proposed Standard

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Russ,
At 17:03 01-02-10, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Ah, thank you.  Changed to SHOULD on the assumption that the (pre-2119)
>language in RFC 1034 was intended to have roughly the same meaning.

"SHOULD" as a requirement first appeared in RFC 1122.  It does not 
necessarily apply to RFCs published before RFC 2119.

>RFC 2782 references RFC 1035 because the reference is in the syntax
>section, and RFC 1035 goes into more detail on the wire syntax.  However,
>I think RFC 1034 is a better conceptual overview.  If one is not
>immediately concerned with the syntax, I therefore think RFC 1034 provides
>a better reference, and the meaning given there is functionally the same
>as that in RFC 1035.
>
>If I'm missing a reason why RFC 1035 is a better cite, please let me
>know.

You gave a good reason.

>I now have:
>
>    DNS SRV RRs, like all DNS RRs, have a time-to-live (TTL), after which
>    the SRV record information is no longer valid.  As specified in
>    [RFC1034], DNS RRs SHOULD be discarded after their TTL, and the DNS
>    query repeated.  This applies to DNS SRV RRs for AFS as to any other
>    DNS RR.  Any information derived from the DNS SRV RRs, such as
>    preference ranks, MUST be discarded when the DNS SRV RR is expired.

I commented on the "SHOULD" above.  The rest of the text looks fine.

Regards,
-sm