Robert, thank you for your review(s), and Rik, thanks for the edits. Your proposed wording below works for me.
Jari On 15 Dec 2015, at 21:20, Rik Ribbers <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, > >> >> I also still think you would have a stronger document if it discussed the >> SHOULD NOT in the security section as I suggest below. I think you read that >> to be me suggesting you change it to MUST NOT. That was not the intent. I >> was asking you to add to the document _why_ it wasn't MUST NOT. > > I’ll take that into consideration, as I have explained it in the response the > wording isn’t that difficult anymore. There are some more IESG review comment > on this section so I assume there will another version to before publication. > > Current wording: > > A server SHOULD NOT perform any transformation on data under server > management when processing a \<keyrelay:create\> command. > > Proposed wording: > > A server SHOULD NOT perform any transformation on data under server > management when processing a \<keyrelay:create\> command. The intent of this > command is to put DNSSEC key material on the poll queue of another client. To > make sure that this EPP extension is interoperable with the different server > policies that already have implemented EPP this extension it is not > classified as must not. > > Please let me know what you think of this proposal (or send in text ;-)) > > Gr, > Rik
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
