Sara and Ray,
I made my point.
If you guys feel strongly about that, fine with me. It's a COMMENT after
all.
Regards, Benoit
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
