On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 5:02 AM Gavin Brown wrote:
> A server may need to disregard the provided TTL values in order to address
> security and stability issues. So "MUST" is not appropriate, because (to
> quote RFC 2119) there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances
> to ignore those
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 6:09 AM Gavin Brown 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
>
Hi John and Murray,
> On 19 Dec 2024, at 13:44, John Scudder via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> 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 t
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-17: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
h
Hi Murray, responses below.
> On 19 Dec 2024, at 07:03, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> I believe the SHOULD in Section 3.1 is misused. What interoperability concern
> is it addressing? It also appears to be a normative constraint while
> simultaneously specifying no
Hi Murray, responses below.
> On 19 Dec 2024, at 07:03, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> I believe the SHOULD in Section 3.1 is misused. What interoperability concern
> is it addressing? It also appears to be a normative constraint while
> simultaneously specifying no
