[regext] Re: [Ext] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

Perfect.  My DISCUSS is cleared.

-MSK

On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 5:52 AM Gavin Brown <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Murray,
>
> > On 19 Dec 2024, at 22:25, Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 5:02 AM Gavin Brown <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > A server may need to disregard the provided TTL values in order to
> address security and stability issues. So "MUST" is not appropriate,
> because (to quote RFC 2119) there may exist valid reasons in particular
> circumstances to ignore those values. But a normative keyword is needed to
> establish the expectation that client-provided TTLs will be honoured by the
> server. "SHOULD" seems appropriate because it's stronger than "MAY" but
> weaker than "MUST".
> >
> > I think that's a fine use of SHOULD.  What I'm suggesting is that we
> might want to add a phrase or sentence that gives an example of when you
> might anticipate one might knowingly disregard a TTL.
> >
> > BCP 14 says basically "SHOULD means MUST unless you really know what
> you're doing", and it's often helpful to include a bit of prose to help the
> implementer meet that bar.
>
> I will add a sentence at the end of the paragraph as follows:
>
> EPP servers which implement this extension SHOULD use the values provided
> by EPP clients for the TTL values of records published in the DNS for
> domain and (if supported) host objects. ***Servers MAY disregard these
> values in order to address security and stability issues, as described in
> Section 5 and Section 6.***
>
> This will be in the version that will be published momentarily.
>
> G.
>
> --
> Gavin Brown
> Principal Engineer, Global Domains & Strategy
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> https://www.icann.org
>
>