Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4343 (5112)

I marked it as "Hold for update" -- next time someone edits this RFC
it might make sense to make it clearer.

Sorry, I thought the errata tool would have sent the mail update.

W

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson <[email protected]> wrote:
> John and I agree
> please reject this errata
>
> Olafur
>
>> On Sep 12, 2017, at 6:15 PM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I would reject this or at most mark it as hold for update.  The word
>> "should" in lower case appears in two other places where it's not used
>> in the 2119 sense, and I think this one is not intended to be the 2119
>> sense either.  The sentence in question is describing the historical
>> situation, and the following capital MUSTs tell you what to do.
>>
>> Having said that, if we ever revisit this document, it would benefit
>> from rewording to make it clearer when it is telling you what to do
>> and when it's just giving background.
>>
>> R's,
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> In article <[email protected]> you write:
>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4343,
>>> "Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity Clarification".
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5112
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Type: Editorial
>>> Reported by: Change "should" to must in section 3.(no subsection) <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Section: 3
>>>
>>> Original Text
>>> -------------
>>> comparisons on name lookup for DNS queries should be case insensitive
>>>
>>> Corrected Text
>>> --------------
>>> comparisons on name lookup for DNS queries must be case insensitive
>>>
>>> Notes
>>> -----
>>> Some authoritative DNS servers and/or mitigation devices/software silently drop queries that have
>>> uppercase letters in them.  Furthermore, the clarification of the case insensitive comparison in the
>>> following two sentences after that particular sentence use the term MUST.  I suspect some readers of the
>>> RFC are reading the word "should" and aren't reading the rest of the paragraph.
>>>
>>> Instructions:
>>> -------------
>>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC4343 (draft-ietf-dnsext-insensitive-06)
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Title               : Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity Clarification
>>> Publication Date    : January 2006
>>> Author(s)           : D. Eastlake 3rd
>>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>>> Source              : DNS Extensions
>>> Area                : Internet
>>> Stream              : IETF
>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dnsext mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dnsext mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext