Murray,
Thanks for your review. We think MUST would make sense here. Would this change
to 5.1.3.4 address your concern?
Old:
The sacrificial name server SHOULD resolve to one or more IP addresses and the
client SHOULD operate an authoritative DNS name server on those addresses. The
name server M
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 2:05 PM Carroll, William
wrote:
>
>
> 5.1.3.4. Renaming to Sacrificial Name Server
>
>
> This description does not seem to match the idea of "sacrificial" name
> server.
> It is more a dedicated nameserver maintained by the client/registrar. Maybe
> "Last Resort Name Server
Yep, I think that's more solid. Thanks!
-MSK
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 6:38 AM Carroll, William
wrote:
> Murray,
> Thanks for your review. We think MUST would make sense here. Would this
> change to 5.1.3.4 address your concern?
> Old:
> The sacrificial name server SHOULD resolve to one or more I
