Re: Last Call: <draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt> (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 05/21/2013 11:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2013-05-21, at 11:50, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

Keith





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]