Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-ds-sha256-02.txt

[Chris Thompson <cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk>]

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?

Apart from that, the second sentence seems tautologous or contradictory
(depending on whether the MUST/SHOULDs match or not). What is the intent
of saying

   1. Validator implementations MUST/SHOULD, by default, do X.
   2. This behaviour MUST/SHOULD be the default.

? Is some subtlety about the distinction between "implementations" and
"validator implementations" escaping me here?

-- 
Chris Thompson
Email: cet1@cam.ac.uk

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>