 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If what the reader is supposed to do and why it should be done is clearly explained, there is no ambiguity. We can only hope that common sense will prevail.
Things have evolved a bit since those days, and while it is clearly appropriate to refer to RFC2181 in the context of this discussion, I don't think we can expect AFS implementors to know to do so. We needn't merely hope for common sense; we can be explicit, through the use of RFC2119 requirements language.
I moved the RFC 1034 reference to the first sentence in that paragraph. I removed the "As specified in" to avoid any inference that the "should" in RFC 1034 has been elevated to a "SHOULD".
Looks good to me. In fact, with this change, I think we can go back to MUST, as was in the original text, and which I think is more consistent with 1034+2181. But I don't have strong feelings on this; SHOULD is already quite strong.
-- Jeff
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.