On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 12:12 PM Rebecca VanRheenen < rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> Hi Med and authors, > > Med - Thank you for reviewing these. We have noted your approval on the > AUTH48 status page for this document (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9824). > > All - Note that we have not changed “SHOULD NOT” to “MUST NOT” per Med's > note below. Please discuss and let us know how to proceed. > > >> 3) Section 3.5 (1st and 2nd paragraphs): change from “should not” > >> to "SHOULD NOT” > > > > The use of normative language is justified here, so OK with both > changes. > > > > One note though, the second "SHOULD NOT" does not have an exception > called out: > > > > CURRENT: > > A resolver SHOULD NOT forward these queries upstream or attempt > iterative resolution > > > > Absent a valid exception, this smells more "MUST NOT". > > > Once Med’s comment is resolved and we receive Olafur’s approval on the > document, we can move this document forward in the publication process. Ideally, I agree this should be a MUST. The softer SHOULD NOT language here was to take into account the pre-existing base of DNS resolvers, some which today do not treat unknown meta-types this way and do actually forward such queries upstream (although most competent DNS resolver implementations do have the correct behavior). My thinking was that publication of this document with a "MUST NOT" here would immediately put those other implementations out of compliance with a standards track document, so I was hesitant to do that. Christian/Olafur - what are your thoughts? Shumon.
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
