On Jul 10, 2015, at 10:31 AM, manning <bmann...@karoshi.com> wrote: > Ok, so that is four. The rational for eight is so that nothing gets lost > and we can garbage collect RFC 2181, moving it to historic. > Then each idea can progress independently, without the linkage to any of the > other work and without the vestigial anchor to the > collective past (RFC2181). > > First split them apart into their own RFCs > Second, move RFC 2181 to historic > Third, start -bising the specify RFCs that folks are working on anyway. > > Clean, Tidy, No trailing steams of toilet paper stuck to our shoes.
Fully disagree about that last bit. Turning one RFC about the DNS into eight, some of which are then expected to be updated, is anything but "clean" or "tidy". On Jul 8, 2015, at 11:50 AM, manning <bmann...@karoshi.com> wrote: > RFC 2181 is growing a both long in the tooth. RFC 2181 has been only been updated by: 2535 4033 4034 4035 4343 5452. 4343 is a long clarification on case sensitivity. The other five update just one section of 2181, the "trustworthiness" rules. Also note that there are no errata on RFC 2181. By IETF standards, that's not "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. Now, when there are raising concerns, there are references to sections in 2181. You are proposing to make those references to sections in eight different RFCs. That seems unclean, untidy. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
