On 2/4/2010 2:30 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > --On Thursday, February 04, 2010 02:20:27 PM -0500 Jeffrey Altman > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2/4/2010 2:05 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: >>> That's not the text we're talking about. >>> >> Sure. Context was lost in the thread as the message-ids are not >> consistent. The text I think is being discussed is not actually in the >> draft, it is proposed >> text that Russ put forward on 1 Feb 2010. >> >> DNS SRV RRs, like all DNS RRs, have a time-to-live (TTL), after which >> the SRV record information is no longer valid. As specified in >> [RFC1034], DNS RRs SHOULD be discarded after their TTL, and the DNS >> query repeated. This applies to DNS SRV RRs for AFS as to any other >> DNS RR. Any information derived from the DNS SRV RRs, such as >> preference ranks, MUST be discarded when the DNS SRV RR is expired. >> >> How about: >> >> DNS SRV RRs, like all DNS RRs, have a time-to-live (TTL), after which >> the SRV record information is no longer valid. As implied by >> [RFC1034], DNS RRs SHOULD be expired after their TTL, and the DNS >> query repeated. This applies to DNS SRV RRs for AFS as well as any >> other DNS RR. Any information derived from the DNS SRV RRs, such as >> preference ranks, MUST be discarded when the DNS SRV RR is expired. > > How about "Consistent with [RFC1034]..."? > > The problem I have with your text that it could be interpreted as > merely descriptive of 1034, rather than as prescribing a requirement > that applies to AFS SRV RR's regardless of how you choose to read 1034. > "Consistent with ... " works for me.
Jeffrey Altman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
