On Aug 20, 2012, at 17:33 , Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:19 AM, Peter Koch <p...@denic.de> wrote: > >> Andrew, >> >>> In the archives since the meeting, I observe some comments at >>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg09783.html. But >>> I do not observe the announcement of a WGLC. I am wondering when we >>> might expect that call. >> >> both chairs have taken advantage of the season at least a bit. One >> of the chairs has recused himself being a co-editor, so this is >> the document shepherd. Issuing the WGLC involves reviewing the >> draft as well as the recent discussion to generate framing questions. >> >> In this particular case, several members of the WG, some of which >> I remember having been in favour of WGLC during the Vancouver >> meeting, had expressed support for a major change to the draft >> suggested by Matthijs Mekking on July 24 >> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg09767.html> >> That would basically mean folding significant parts of 'keytiming bis' >> into the current 'key timing' draft. > > That was my (probably biased) memory as well. > >> My current reading of the sense of the WG is that we move to >> WGLC with -03, declaring the July 24 suggestion out of scope >> for this document and keep momentum for 'dnssec bis'. > > That's one way to do it. A better one would be to start WG LC on key-timing > with an explicit question to the WG about folding in the keytiming-bis > changes. That way, the WG would know the status of both, and we would would > possibly produce just one document. The operations community would be better > off with just one document, if this WG can do that.
Not to question the abilities of the WG, but I still have to ask whether (in your opinion) the operations community would be better off with a single document that may be finished around Christmas Eve 2020 or rather live with multiple docs that are published somewhat sooner than that. > Having more than one requires them to know the RFC numbers for all the > documents for which they are possibly interested. Other WGs have problems > with developers having to know about three RFCs for a protocol; it seems odd > to think that us having a dozen documents for operators is a good idea. > Long documents are not a problem if they are reasonably well organized with > truly parallel sections. So, on principle I have to disagree with this. Multiple documents are a method of abstraction and organization, just like directories, or, for that matter, dividing your source into multiple files. If it is really a problem to have to refer to more than on RFC, then I think we made a huge error many years ago when we gave RFCs a number. We should have gone for "The RFC For The Internet" (yet to be published) and meanwhile kept the Internet running on various versions of expired drafts. Tongue-in-cheek and no offence intended ;-) Regards, Johan _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
