[AFS3-std] Re: Last Call: draft-allbery-afs-srv-records (DNS SRV Resource Records for AFS) to Proposed Standard

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

--On Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:34:52 AM -0800 SM <sm@resistor.net> 
wrote:

> 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