Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> writes:
> Saying "SHOULD NOT" without helping the reading understand the
> implications is dangerous and will lead to lack of
> interoperability. Either this document specifies the exact places
> where an EDE can change the processing of the RCODE, or the current
> MUST NOT wording is correct.
Did you read the new replacement sentence?
Applications MUST continue to follow requirements from applicable
specs on how to process RCODEs no matter what EDE values is also
received.
Is that sufficient?
> Some folks (apparently including the document authors) want to be be
> able to use the presence of an EDE to change the way resolvers act.
Not sure why you think the authors think that. We've (I think all) been
arguing "this is for debugging". I do push back on unnecessary MUSTs a
lot of the time, but I think the above text is better and still uses
strong language and indicates precedence goes to other specs.
--
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
