> On 6 Jan 2016, at 15:32, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Ray, > > I understand this. > My point is that, at some point in time, history doesn't matter any longer.
Hi, FWIIW I’m with Ray on this one - I think it is important to retain the full title. I think the change of SHOULD to MUST for TCP implementation is still significant enough today to warrant this. And IMHO the new requirements in this version of the document also warrant that label. Sara. > > Regards, Benoit >> On 06/01/2016 13:46, Benoit Claise wrote: >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> I was slightly surprised by "implementation requirements" in the title. >>> If we write a RFC, we hopefully hope/require future implementations, >>> right? >>> I understand the willingness to change as little text as possible >>> compared RFC5966, but I would welcome the following update: >> The rationale for the original text in RFC 5966 was that whilst how to >> use TCP was already *specified*, it was often taken as not *required to >> implement*. >> >> IMHO, your proposed alternate text loses that distinction. >> >> kind regards, >> >> Ray _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
