On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Edward Lewis <ed.le...@neustar.biz> wrote:
> I have no problem with this in spirit. But I always wonder why the > presentation formats, as in section 3.2 and 4.2, have MUST concerning how the > record is "written." I've never considered the presentation format to be > subject to a standard...I realize that's just my opinion, but the on-the-wire > format is what is subject to interoperability concerns. This has come up before, and there are indeed interoperability issues with presentation formats. Developers will use examples they find in the RFC and on the Internet to create encoders and parsers. If there is an agreed-to presentation format, the likelihood of wire interoperability goes way up. > The document can have the MUSTs but I'd prefer SHOULDs. A "SHOULD" is a "MUST except for these reasons". What would the reasons be for using a different presentation format? > It's right that there's only one way these addresses ever get written, so the > MUST seems logical, OTOH, it just seems over the top to demand it be written > one way or another. I certainly understand it is INTENDED to be written as > documented, but is it a sin if I implement something else? (How would an > alternate form hinder interoperability.) > > Apparently I am a little cranky today. ...and haven't re-read RFC 2119 in a while. There is no mention of "sin". --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
