On 04-10-16 18:34, 神明達哉 wrote:
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).
RFC 2119 has a section on guidance in using 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
example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
on implementors where the method is not required for
interoperability.
According to this guidance, I think configuration options should not be
subject to these imperatives.
Best regards,
Matthijs
--
JINMEI, Tatuya
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
