I agrée with Sara and I think even if we had some reason for the
inconsistency in the past, making both sections say MUST and be consistent
is appropriate.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 12:27 Sara Dickinson wrote:
> I agree with the errata - I believe this was an oversight in this PR:
> https://github.
I agree with the errata - I believe this was an oversight in this PR:
https://github.com/huitema/dnsoquic/pull/132/files that was created in response
to review from the WG
- it changed SHOULD -> MUST in section 5.4 but
- it did not update the SHOULD in section 7.5 to be consistent at the same tim
This wording in RFC9250 was deliberate. It was discussed in details when
the RFC was written. The current text correctly reflects the result of
these discussions.
-- Christian Huitema
On 4/4/2024 6:38 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9250,
"DN
