On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:52:45PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote: > I asked this before and got no answer. RFC2119 itself gives some > guidance:
I don't think that's exactly true. I pointed out that, as far as I know, this document is intended to be an informational document, which means that it will not specify any standards. I asked for advice (or dissent) from our colleagues on this list, and received nothing, so I assume that others agree. The relevant bits of [RFC2119] are ones you actually quote: > "6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives > > "Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care > and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is > actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has > potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For > My purpose in using these terms is to limit behavior which has the > potential for causing harm. So far as I can see, you haven't demonstrated that the "harm" you are talking about is the same as the "harm" that 2119 is talking about. That is, you might think it a foolish thing to draw any conclusions from reverse tree data; that does not mean that others, with different experiences or situations, would in their cases reach the same conclusion. I believe the draft allows both cases to be considered. Therefore, this is not "harm to the Internet" in the way that the example "limiting retransmissions" suggests. If you can provide an argument that reaches that threshold, I'm willing to reconsider my view. But so far, I haven't seen one. By the way, I apologise to all that I haven't sent the updated draft this week; I got waylaid by another task. I hope I'll be able to redress this either this weekend or early next week. A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
