IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Wed, 08 May 2013 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A2E21F86F0 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AN0++C-P94Ts for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x235.google.com (mail-qc0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A555921F85EF for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id s10so1341018qcv.12 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 May 2013 14:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=x-received:references:from:mime-version:in-reply-to:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=wBcZ/bmQOh0G1PYVdxCD2be+H62RdbgXN7M9Y0ch+oA=; b=mYjFy2M/rDPQJaTT+S71C6K4ibnslLETm5KC/Xri0e2qIigwl4JNFgjj+Ssp5Y4Vo+ JMznLzpbvH3ly38IztWwU7hPviK2mGnk/YH4ilAbl9Ul3zPgDJsFhZ1CW3/70dU/Phwj /Ntacix7FKu/jjyCjxNpMNDevdRFgRIJDEFL4=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:references:from:mime-version:in-reply-to:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=wBcZ/bmQOh0G1PYVdxCD2be+H62RdbgXN7M9Y0ch+oA=; b=kRglNgwIZ6+FQhNUek8JItQxuhU3Pz9ZJf3MBdoLFUvl1V6wz07Br3Begl3uqh/k4t Ej9ze7OpR0FxSg5SMxnubqkcSiZKf8rWER+rRExebXvr9j34/mAf33u9JSAh44MZHfDF 0+pfs9uKcF41zqSi0OW0TsQVDJTCyiej19evi/EL5bKq9gL9tV6Txo4HHPMKCKLlAHxV 6zaeG3mdqC3pfLRcDIgPelR4DRmKI0qqbGdSyoOBzcMAgHwo7O1CL18LAz98LZmCTKkJ QImC6dvgjRhyVDESiu3E2zWKhrK0ezCsnWo923HxvCz04JC5oW/bj960PayioZ6Ma6rJ WrSg==
X-Received: by 10.49.104.37 with SMTP id gb5mr7314169qeb.41.1368050149092; Wed, 08 May 2013 14:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130428233426.0b62fed0@elandnews.com> <20130430083206.GD46852@elstar.local> <6.2.5.6.2.20130508092054.0c02f378@resistor.net> <m2a9o5ckpu.wl%randy@psg.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130508130025.0c082b18@elandnews.com>
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130508130025.0c082b18@elandnews.com>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:55:49 -0400
Message-ID: <2604527301889679776@unknownmsgid>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkUykdw4xNTaUHhdOB2nhhXGnsZY1WSl6XSkpHShRABiQ9DO4eQKPU1YnR+1KsjhOaDYhBU
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 09 May 2013 20:07:08 -0700
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 21:55:50 -0000

On 2013-05-08, at 17:30, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

> At 12:53 08-05-2013, Randy Bush wrote:
>> MAY != SHOULD
>
> The text is as follows: "The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever possible".  If the working group would like a RFC 2119 SHOULD it would help if there is an explanation in the sentence for the reader weigh the implications of not following that.

My knee-jerk reaction is to use MUST. Partially-qualified domain names
are ambiguous at best.

Similarly, "wherever possible" is unhelpful; if it's not possible to
fully-qualify a domain name then ambiguity is guaranteed.


Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email