On 2013-05-08, at 17:30, S Moonesamy <sm+i...@elandsys.com> wrote: > At 12:53 08-05-2013, Randy Bush wrote: >> MAY != SHOULD > > The text is as follows: "The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever > possible". If the working group would like a RFC 2119 SHOULD it would help > if there is an explanation in the sentence for the reader weigh the > implications of not following that.
My knee-jerk reaction is to use MUST. Partially-qualified domain names are ambiguous at best. Similarly, "wherever possible" is unhelpful; if it's not possible to fully-qualify a domain name then ambiguity is guaranteed. Joe
