On 2010-11-27, at 13:02, Tony Finch wrote: > On 27 Nov 2010, at 15:57, Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: >> >> I don't know how to defend an assertion in absolute terms that this >> understanding is categorically wrong. How would you do it? > > As I have said before, RFC 1123 is very clear that DISCUSSION sections are > for clarification and explanation. They do not impose requirements that do > not exist in the normative sections.
That argument speaks to the question of whether 1123 imposes a requirement, but not whether the requirement discussed in 1123 existed. The fact that it was discussed, in a DISCUSSION section as you point out, surely suggests that it did exist, and absent any subsequent clarification, presumably still does. We're talking about an era where documentation was often not especially rigourous, and when the state of the network frequently depended on information that existed only in peoples' heads, or pragmatically in software produced by early implementors. Maybe a reference to the restriction is as much as we can hope for from 1123. I still don't feel that the assertion that no requirement existed is defensible. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
