On 06/01/2016 13:46, Benoit Claise wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I was slightly surprised by "implementation requirements" in the title. > If we write a RFC, we hopefully hope/require future implementations, > right? > I understand the willingness to change as little text as possible > compared RFC5966, but I would welcome the following update:
The rationale for the original text in RFC 5966 was that whilst how to use TCP was already *specified*, it was often taken as not *required to implement*. IMHO, your proposed alternate text loses that distinction. kind regards, Ray _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
