On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Evan Hunt <e...@isc.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:44:28AM +0200, Warren Kumari wrote: >> "An NTA placed at a node where there is a configured positive trust >> anchor MUST take precendence over that trust anchor, effectively >> disabling it. Implementations SHOULD issue a warning or informational >> message when this occurs, so that operators are not surprised when >> this happens." >> >> Just added. Seem good? > > I'd have gone with MAY instead of SHOULD, but that's a quibble: > it's fine.
Changed. This gave me an excuse to bump the version number to -10, which scratches my OCD itch. :-) W > > -- > Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org > Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
