On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 2:47 AM Shumon Huque <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 12:12 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Med and authors,
>>
>> Med - Thank you for reviewing these. We have noted your approval on the
>> AUTH48 status page for this document (see
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9824).
>>
>> All - Note that we have not changed “SHOULD NOT” to “MUST NOT” per Med's
>> note below. Please discuss and let us know how to proceed.
>>
>> >> 3) Section 3.5 (1st and 2nd paragraphs): change from “should not”
>> >> to "SHOULD NOT”
>> >
>> > The use of normative language is justified here, so OK with both
>> changes.
>> >
>> > One note though, the second "SHOULD NOT" does not have an exception
>> called out:
>> >
>> > CURRENT:
>> >   A resolver SHOULD NOT forward these queries upstream or attempt
>> iterative resolution
>> >
>> > Absent a valid exception, this smells more "MUST NOT".
>>
>>
>> Once Med’s comment is resolved and we receive Olafur’s approval on the
>> document, we can move this document forward in the publication process.
>
>
> Ideally, I agree this should be a MUST.
>
> The softer SHOULD NOT language here was to take into account the
> pre-existing base of DNS resolvers, some which today do not treat unknown
> meta-types this way and do actually forward such queries upstream (although
> most competent DNS resolver implementations do have the correct behavior).
> My thinking was that publication of this document with a "MUST NOT" here
> would immediately put those other implementations out of compliance with a
> standards track document, so I was hesitant to do that.
>
> Christian/Olafur - what are your thoughts?
>

I agree that this should be a MUST. There is no enforcing function, nor
would pre-existing resolvers etc, stop functioning in any new way if they
keep breaking this new MUST.
Making the language clear and unambiguous has in my view only upsides here.

/Christian
-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to