On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 09:37:41AM -0500, David Blacka wrote: > On Dec 16, 2005, at 9:19 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: > >I realize this doesn't answer the question "did the group?": > >Isn't everything subject to local policy? (I think so.) > >For the sake of interoperability, is this important? (I don't > >think so.) > >Therefore I my opinion is that it should be SHOULD. As in a > >recommendation. > I agree. This is a recommendation, not a requirement. > > >At 13:41 -0500 12/14/05, Scott Rose wrote: > >>I think there is a typo in Section 3, second paragraph: > >> > >>"Validator implementations MUST, by default, ignore DS RRs > >>containing SHA-1 > >>digests if DS RRs with SHA-256 digests are present in the DS > >>RRset. THis > >>behavior SHOULD be the default." > >> > >>Did the group decide on MUST, or SHOULD? For what it is worth, I have reviewed the document and believe that it is ready to progress once the language in Section 3 has been cleaned up as Ed and David suggest. -rob
Attachment:
pgp3CgCB9sWre.pgp
Description: PGP signature