--On Thursday, May 09, 2013 09:28 +0200 Randy Bush
wrote:
>> Similarly, "wherever possible" is unhelpful; if it's not
>> possible to fully-qualify a domain name then ambiguity is
>> guaranteed.
>
> no, that is what SHOLD means. e.g. when i write docco that
> has an ops clause where there is l
>>> MAY != SHOULD
>> The text is as follows: "The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever
>> possible". If the working group would like a RFC 2119 SHOULD it
>> would help if there is an explanation in the sentence for the reader
>> weigh the implications of not following that.
> My knee-jerk react
S Moonesamy wrote:
> At 01:32 30-04-2013, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >I am not sure what you think is unclear. Note that the definition of
> >the typedef domain-name is unchanged from the one in RFC 6021. Perhaps
> >you can make a concrete text change proposal so I better understand
> >what you
On 2013-05-08, at 17:30, S Moonesamy wrote:
> At 12:53 08-05-2013, Randy Bush wrote:
>> MAY != SHOULD
>
> The text is as follows: "The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever
> possible". If the working group would like a RFC 2119 SHOULD it would help
> if there is an explanation in the senten
At 12:53 08-05-2013, Randy Bush wrote:
MAY != SHOULD
The text is as follows: "The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever
possible". If the working group would like a RFC 2119 SHOULD it
would help if there is an explanation in the sentence for the reader
weigh the implications of not follow
>"The domain-name type represents a DNS domain name. The
> name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever possible."
>
> That sounds like a MAY.
MAY != SHOULD
At 01:32 30-04-2013, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
I am not sure what you think is unclear. Note that the definition of
the typedef domain-name is unchanged from the one in RFC 6021. Perhaps
you can make a concrete text change proposal so I better understand
what your concern is.
I read draft-ie
