At 21:39 +0000 2/9/12, <bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
I think that starting work on such a draft is a great idea -BUT- in the
mean time do not let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". I beleive
Terry agreed with that line of thnking. Of the existing Operators, A, B,
E, G, H, J, L, and M have made positive comments and worked on upgrading this
base text provided by one of the Operators. Is your opinion / argument strong
enough to stop work on this draft?
As David says, why is this document being republished? Is there some deadline?
This is a document not code, and not even a first document but a
revision. If a revision is not "perfect" at the time it is
published, it's pretty much not worth publishing. Especially an
update document - we already have an RFC on this, why update it with
another RFC that inaccurately describes the state of the world.
My concern is that future RFPs and contracts will cite this as a
document to comply with. That is when it becomes my pain, even if
the job at hand is not operating a root server. I especially like
Joe's point #3.
That said, I'd love to see a revamped version, if you have the time to
copy-edit/reorgnize the document.
I do not recommend publishing the document as is.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468
2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
