IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> Wed, 03 February 2010 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <eagle@windlord.stanford.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9199328B23E for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:26:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KR8KNQv5BfGm for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.219.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 998163A69B1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id AE4CD1A0E57; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:27:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.67.225.134]) by smtp.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A2201A0E54; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:27:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0B5022F4D7; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:27:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: [AFS3-std] Re: Last Call: draft-allbery-afs-srv-records (DNS SRV Resource Records for AFS) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20100203140241.08c1a838@resistor.net> (sm@resistor.net's message of "Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:04:03 -0800")
Organization: The Eyrie
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20100203140241.08c1a838@resistor.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:27:01 -0800
Message-ID: <87d40loq7u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:16:32 -0800
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, afs3-standardization@openafs.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:26:18 -0000

SM <sm@resistor.net> writes:
> 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.

I guess I'm not clear on what you think the correct fix is.  I'm hesitant
to use a lowercase "should" in a document that explicitly references RFC
2119, since then it's ambiguous what that is supposed to mean in terms of
a standard requirement.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status