> On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:31 PM, manning <bmann...@karoshi.com> wrote: > > I am aware of at least three of the independent ideas in RFC 2181 that folks > are working on: > > draft-pfrc-2181--naming-issues-00 > draft-pfrc-2181-handling-zone-cuts-00 (isn’t this the basis for the dbound > work?) > draft-pfrc-2181-resource-record-sets-00 > draft-pfrc-2181-tc-bit-00 > > 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).
There is a difference between “someone” working on and what is acceptable and/or relevant to the DNSOP working group. Please share more!!! > > 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. > Not at all this will become a reference nightmare there are currently over 40 RFC that reference 2181, finding which document to read now is much harder. Not to mention that people will pick on the documents for not following current way of standards writing to the letter. Bill, please tell us what you want update before starting any process that may or may not work. With out justification this is a waste of everyone’s time, because if the proposed work is not acceptable there is no reason to update RFC2181 in any way. Olafur (hating being the process fascist) _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
