> On Jul 8, 2015, at 2:50 PM, manning <bmann...@karoshi.com> wrote: > > With the WG Chairs permission. > > RFC 2181 is growing a both long in the tooth. It is, by its own admission, a > collection of eight distinct and independent ideas. As such, it is difficult > to work on one of > those ideas without raising concerns about all of them. With some > coworkers, we split out each of the ideas in RFC 2181 and have created a > standalone ID that has the > EXACT text from RFC 2181. What would be a very nice, administrative, step is > to take each of these IDs and last call them, turning them into RFCs with the > same status > as RFC 2181. It will then be possible to declare RFC 2181 historic, and > folks that then want to update/work on specifics can make changes against > these new RFCs. >
Bill, I oppose this strongly for the following reasons a) A frequent comment I hear is “DNS has too many RFC’s to read”, this approach will make that worse for no reason. b) If there is a need to update an section of RFC2181 then we have a process to obsolete parts of RFC2181 with a new document. c) Just putting this as is in front of the WG is just make-work IMHO Question: What sections of 2181 do you see the need to update? Regards Olafur _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
