> On 7 Nov 2019, at 15:57, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
Thanks - will update! Sara. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
