>> If this observation is correct, I think what we should first agree on >> is the real intent of the draft: >> A. nxdomain-cut is "the correct behavior" and implementations SHOULD >> generally support the behavior. Other behaviors are allowed but >> should be considered minor exceptions.
> Agree. That's the whole point of the draft. Slide 3 at the Yokohama meeting > <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-dnsop-9.pdf> I believe that Jinmei-san was proposing one of two positions the working group could take, so you aren't agreeing with him--you are saying what your opinion is as to what the working group's position should be. And the slide you've referenced as a supporting document is a slide from a presentation you wrote which does not say anything about making this a normative requirement! I think that you should explain what the interoperability problem is that this proposed normative requirement addresses, and otherwise we should drop it and let implementors decide how best to treat this. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
