At Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:24:10 -0500, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
> > IMO, however, that doesn't mean we can casually use the fact to > > silence objections when the requirement level might actually be too > > strong. In my understanding and also according to my experiences, > > MUST requirements are in fact very strong. > > Can you talk about why you personally think MUST is too strong here? I said it might be too strong, so it's more that I *wonder* whether it might be too strong. This impression comes from the observation that while the draft uses a strong word several people hinted at customization. That looked odd to me - if they so strongly think it must be a MUST, it would look more sensible to me if they said "it MUST be that way, period <because XXX>". It's true that there are always people who still disagree with it and are willing to ignore the MUST, but in that case we should rather call them a standard offender instead of pretending to offer an option. Stating a MUST on one hand while hinting at violating it as a "customization" on the other looked awkward to me, making me think the WG might actually feel it's too strong. > It's interesting to discuss it on a meta-level, but I think we might > get lost in the weeds doing that. If you are feeling uneasy about > this requirement, I suspect that there is a use case lurking down > there somewhere under the discomfort. Bringing it up to the > surface might help. Personally, I don't mind the MUST (and for that matter I don't mind either if it's a SHOULD). But given that it will break existing practices, I'd like the draft to explain the rationale in more detail. And I'd like it to make it clearer that it intentionally plugs any possibility of user customization, whether it's a protocol-violating server option or a customized /etc/hosts entry. And then let the market decide whether to obey it. As for specific use case, I don't have one for myself as such. But the discussion so far (not only in this thread but also in the past WG discussions, which actually are the base of my own response to the LC) seems to suggest that a non-negligible number of deployments exist. And I just thought the current content of the draft isn't clear enough as a message for those with the existing deployments. BTW: in case you think if I personally don't mind I should shut up: I observed this oddity as a weakness of the document that could make it less convincing and more likely to be ignored. I believe pointing it out and possibly improving it are completely valid feedback for a WGLC, regardless of my own personal position on the content. Of course, whether and how to address the feedback is up to the WG; I'm not intending to be a blocker but are just trying to help it. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
