At Tue, 4 Oct 2016 14:06:54 +0200,
Matthijs Mekking <matth...@pletterpet.nl> wrote:
> 2. In addition to the first point, I don't think it is appropriate to
> use RFC 2119 keywords to dictate name server configuration. Mentioning
> it would be useful to have configuration options for enabling and
> disabling this functionality seems okay, but drop the RFC 2119 formalities.
I don't have a strong opinion on your suggestion (dropping RFC2119
keywords for configuration) itself. But I thought this type of text
was pretty common in RFCs. A quick google pointed to section 4.2.3.6
of RFC1122:
This interval MUST be
configurable and MUST default to no less than two hours.
I believe there are more recent precedents, too. So the draft text
didn't necessarily look inappropriate to me (whether the requirement
level is appropriate is a different question).
--
JINMEI, Tatuya
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
