Subject: RE: ISSUE 10: Use of RFC 2119 terminology, was Re: Pending issues for draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements-01

From: "Scott Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:54:07 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Suresh Krishnaswamy
>
>
> ISSUE 10: Use of RFC 2119 terminology, NEW
>
> This document is to be used as guidance for selecting a rollover
> solution.
> It may well be that not all the requirements can be met in which case
> trade-offs will be made. The use of 2119 terminology may be confusing
> here and Olaf has proposed the following change:
>
> REMOVE:
>    The use of the RFC-2119 words in this version of document is
>     preliminary in nature and feedback is requested as to the correct
>     word to use for each of the requirements.
>
> ADD:
>    The use of RFC-2119 words in the requirements is intended to
>    unambiguously describe a requirement. If a tradeoff is to be made
>    between conflicting requirements when choosing for a solution the
>    requirement with MUST language will have higher preference than
>    requirements with SHOULD, MAY, or RECOMMEND language. It is understood
>    that a tradeoff may need to be made between requirements that both
>    contain MUST language.
>

Haven't seen much in the way of resolution on this topic, but I think it is
unnecessary.  Isn't a MUST always more important over a SHOULD?  Any
solution would require trade offs of some kind.

Scott

> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>