On 2013-05-21, at 11:56, Keith Moore <mo...@network-heretics.com> wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 11:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote: >> On 2013-05-21, at 11:50, Keith Moore <mo...@network-heretics.com> wrote: >> >>> On 05/21/2013 11:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: >>>> With respect to the question of proposed standard. What changes if the >>>> requested status is informational? >>> I think just get rid of the normative language - SHOULDs, MUSTs, etc. >> From the perspective of giving guidance to people implementing these >> RRTypes, it seems to me that the normative language is useful, perhaps even >> necessary, to ensure interoperability. >> >> I admit I have not done my homework here; is the suggestion that the 2119 >> normative language cannot (MUST NOT? :-) appear in an informational document? > > 2119 language is intended to describe requirements of standards-track > documents. Informational documents cannot impose requirements. Then I think we've just identified a reason why this document should be on the standards track. Joe
