Il 30/06/2022 01:54 Tommy Jensen <jensen.thomas=40microsoft.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
Why the following isn't a MUST NOT?
Clients SHOULD NOT automatically use a Designated
Resolver without some sort of validation, such as the two methods
defined in this document or a future mechanism.[TommyJ] MUST NOT is probably more appropriate (changed); the SHOULD NOT is an artifact of prior discussions changing the scope of the document.
This is fine as long as it is clear that any validation mechanism other than the two methods in the document is still acceptable, and that each implementation will define on its own what constitutes "some sort of validation" to an acceptable level; "such as" should possibly make that happen. I just hope that we will never get to argue whether some implementation's algorithm actually is "some sort of validation" or not.
--
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bertola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
