Hi Russ,
At 17:03 01-02-10, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ah, thank you. Changed to SHOULD on the assumption that the (pre-2119)
language in RFC 1034 was intended to have roughly the same meaning.
"SHOULD" as a requirement first appeared in RFC 1122. It does not
necessarily apply to RFCs published before RFC 2119.
RFC 2782 references RFC 1035 because the reference is in the syntax
section, and RFC 1035 goes into more detail on the wire syntax. However,
I think RFC 1034 is a better conceptual overview. If one is not
immediately concerned with the syntax, I therefore think RFC 1034 provides
a better reference, and the meaning given there is functionally the same
as that in RFC 1035.
If I'm missing a reason why RFC 1035 is a better cite, please let me
know.
You gave a good reason.
I now have:
DNS SRV RRs, like all DNS RRs, have a time-to-live (TTL), after which
the SRV record information is no longer valid. As specified in
[RFC1034], DNS RRs SHOULD be discarded after their TTL, and the DNS
query repeated. This applies to DNS SRV RRs for AFS as to any other
DNS RR. Any information derived from the DNS SRV RRs, such as
preference ranks, MUST be discarded when the DNS SRV RR is expired.
I commented on the "SHOULD" above. The rest of the text looks fine.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf