On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 05:32:33PM +0100, Petr Špaček wrote: > I personally agree with the doc, it makes sense to me, and I do not > believe that its wording prevent anyone from adding knobs they want. > Software in the end will do whatever its developers wanted, which might > include knob to override any part of spec.
The purpose of RFC 2119 language is not to make people feel better or to provide the imaginary benefit of a stick with which to beat people for non-conformance. The purpose is to maximise reliable interoperation, where "reliable" is interpreted generously to include concern for security and privacy, and "interoperation" is interpreted generously to include avoidance of anti-patterns in design and deployment choices. So the problem here is that, if people start adding local configurations to override the proposed update to "MUST", the goals of the document won't be realised anyway. If on the other hand we understand 2119 language correctly and apply it rigorously, the failure to capture localhost at the local boundary will already be understood as a problem (regardless of what the mechanism is by which one gets there -- the BSD approach would be as good as any other). Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
