At Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:54:39 -0500, Dave Lawrence <t...@dd.org> wrote:
> > I'm not sure a standards track document that updates RFC 1034/1035 > > should be recommending a minimum TTL. > > As previously noted, we're making no such recommendation and that will > be clarified. The first definition of "resolution recheck timer" in > section 5 does already say that it regards failed lookups, but it > seems that adding that distinction later is also warranted. > > > The document is actively confusing about recommendations. > > Before we go pushing around whole sections of text, could anyone > please comment on whether they find it "actively confusing about > recommendations"? FWIW: "actively confusing" may be too strong, but I also found it confusing on my fresh re-read of serve-stale-03 in that the "example method" section contains normative descriptions using RFC2119 keywords. So I support Paul's proposal: >> Proposal: Put all recommendations in Section 4, and talk about them >> (instead of introducing them) in the other sections. That way, a >> lazy developer who only reads Section 4 will know all the >> recommendations. -- JINMEI, Tatuya
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
