On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 01:16:29PM +0000, Sara Dickinson <[email protected]> wrote a message of 241 lines which said:
> The current usage is the result of a discussion on the very first > version of the draft (draft-dickinson-dprive-bcp-op-00, June 2018) > and since then (limited) usage of RFC2119 language has been > present. There have been comments on both sides that the language > should be stronger and weaker and this was the compromise > outcome. The SHOULD does ripple through the document though as it > defines all the Mitigations listed in the later sections as being > recommended for minimal compliance. How much of an issue is this for > you? Not too important. > I can understand this reading of it but item 1 you list above was > not at all the goal of this at all text. Perhaps this could be > better phrased as “A DNS privacy service should strive to engineer > encrypted services to the same availability level as any unencrypted > services they provide.”? OK, fine. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
