Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The document should be revised to take out all the upper-case keywords
use of RFC 2119 keywords in documents not specifying protocols or processes is a tightrope walk anyway, but as long as the weaker forms like SHOULD or RECOMMENDED are used they are OK for a BCP. > Regional Registries and any Local Registries to whom they delegate > SHOULD establish and convey a policy to those to whom they delegate > blocks that IN-ADDR mappings are required. Policies SHOULD require > those receiving delegations to provide IN-ADDR service and/or > delegate to downstream customers. > > .. even if this would be a good practice, it's not an IETF business to > set these requirements or so it would seem to me. The IETF also suggests/recommends certain network ingress filters although that's not its core business. However, I agree that the term "required" here again is too strong. Highly RECOMMENDing should be sufficient, not more but also not less. -Peter . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
