To:
Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Steve Mattson <hobbes@engin.umich.edu>
Date:
Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:48:56 -0500
In-reply-to:
Your message of Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:16:23 -0500
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-01.txt
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:16:23 -0500 To: dnsop@cafax.se From: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com> Subject: draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-01.txt This updated draft has hit the repository. I captured comments from Pittsburgh and from the mailing list for the most part, but may well have missed some of each. Please read and comment. Dan -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Senie dts@senie.com Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com I looked it over earlier today. I came away with some confusion about the usage of "SHOULD", "must", and "required" throughout the draft. Is the intent to constrain configurations as with a requirement such that the "SHOULD"s could be rewritten as "MUST"s? Or, is the goal to publish as a BCP, where the "must"s could be rewritten as "it is recommended that" or something similar? I'd have a better idea of how to read the draft if you could clarify this point. Thanks. Steve Mattson University of Michigan