> Does this mean: > > A: All implementations that conform to this document should prefer the > NTA over the positive anchor in such a case, or > B: This is implementation-dependent, but if an implementation allows > the coexistence of positive and negative anchors, it should prefer > the NTA, or > C: something else?
Good point. I personally favor A, but would be fine with B. I'd be interested in input from other implementors; if there's a constituency for B then fine, but if we're all going to allow coexistence anyway, we might as well specify it that way. > I don't have a strong opinion between A and B, but I'd like this > document to be clear on this. And, if it means A, I'd use an RFC2119 > keyword (it's probably a SHOULD). With respect to the precedence rule, I would use MUST rather than SHOULD. -- Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
