Dear Francis, I’ve discussed this with a few people at Cisco who have done RFCs and we’ve come to the conclusion that SHOULD and MAY can be removed. The sentence now reads:
An IP address is preferred for simplicity but both an IP Address and FQDN can be used As you can tell, this is my first draft that has progressed at all, and I thank you kindly for helping a “newbie” I’m going to upload a new version with the fixes. Jeff On 25 Jun 2014, at 15:20, Francis Dupont <[email protected]> wrote: > In your previous mail you wrote: > >> Dear Francis, >> I've done the changes, but I need some more information: >> >>> 4.2 page 9 (connection-address): (ambiguous wording) >>> ... An IP address >>> SHOULD be used, but an FQDN MAY be used in place of an IP address. >> >> [JIG] I'm not getting the ambiguity. > > => IMHO "A SHOULD be used, but B MAY be used" without a complete list > of cases where B SHOULD be used (i.e., the exceptions) is inherently > ambiguous. > >> Unusually, we deliberately _are_ recommending using an IP address >> over an FQDN but allowing both > > => I understand the idea but IMHO the wording is not the right one > (i.e., SHOULD is too strong). > >> and the reasoning for preferring an IP address is self >> evident from additional complexity in the succeeding sentences. > > => the succeeding sentences are about support (where SHOULD+MAY > don't conflict). > > Thanks > > [email protected] > > PS: there are (at least) two ways to solve this: > - to ignore my comment (I put it into editorial comments to allow this > solution, the other choice was to make a minor point with a high > probability to see a DISCUSS about the point :-). > - to get some advice from the list as I shall be very surprised it is > the first case we have a conflict for a SHOULD+MAY about use. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
