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

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, February 04, 2010 02:20:27 PM -0500 Jeffrey Altman 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2/4/2010 2:05 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
>> That's not the text we're talking about.
>>
> Sure.  Context was lost in the thread as the message-ids are not
> consistent. The text I think is being discussed is not actually in the
> draft, it is proposed
> text that Russ put forward on 1 Feb 2010.
>
>    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    the SRV record information is no longer valid.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.
>
> How about:
>
>    DNS SRV RRs, like all DNS RRs, have a time-to-live (TTL), after which
>    the SRV record information is no longer valid.  As implied by
>    [RFC1034], DNS RRs SHOULD be expired after their TTL, and the DNS
>    query repeated.  This applies to DNS SRV RRs for AFS as well as 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.

How about "Consistent with [RFC1034]..."?

The problem I have with your text that it could be interpreted as merely 
descriptive of 1034, rather than as prescribing a requirement that applies 
to AFS SRV RR's regardless of how you choose to read 1034.

-- Jeff