On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 6:09 AM Gavin Brown <gavin.br...@icann.org> wrote:
> > I support Murray’s DISCUSS position re the SHOULD in Section 3.1, > although > > possibly for a slightly different motivation. I saw the reply to his > DISCUSS to > > the effect that you’re saying the operator really had better configure a > > policy. As written that’s not clear from the text of the spec: > > > > “Servers SHOULD restrict the supported DNS record types in accordance > with > > their own policy.” > > > > What I took away from that sentence, reading it without benefit of > looking at > > the list discussion, was “a server should respect configured policy, > unless it > > doesn’t feel like it, in which case whatever”. Evidently that’s not what > you > > mean (good!). Perhaps something like, > > > > “Operators SHOULD configure server policy to restrict the supported DNS > record > > types, in accordance with their own requirements.” > > That's useful feedback, and I agree that wording makes more sense. I will > include it in the next version. > That's definitely better, but I'm not sure it quite nails what I'm griping about. What is the interoperability impact of an operator not configuring server policy to restrict etc. etc.? Basically, why is this a SHOULD, and what's the impact of me not doing so? Would other participants in this protocol even notice? I'm wondering because server policy based on my own operational requirements seems like an entirely local matter. -MSK
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
