Bill,
In the interests of keeping things simple: Do you have substantive changes to RFC 2181 to propose for WG consideration at this time? If so-- please provide the list with pointers to the relevant internet-drafts. If not-- I hope that when you do have substantive changes to suggest, you'll write them up as internet-drafts so the WG can consider them then. For now: we're not inclined to take on the document production process work you're requesting without more information and review of potential changes to the existing content of RFC 2181. In addition to the objections already raised, I find I have serious doubt that we'd be able to get text known to be inaccurate, such as discussion of DNSSEC already updated by RFC 4033/4034/4035, copied from an old RFC and pushed through the process as a new RFC in the hope that it will actually be updated in the future by yet another RFC. As I said earlier-- If the WG wants to do the substantive work, we can manage the process machinery accordingly. best, Suzanne 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). > > 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. > > manning > bmann...@karoshi.com > PO Box 12317 > Marina del Rey, CA 90295 > 310.322.8102 > > > > On 10July2015Friday, at 9:06, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Bill, >> >> On Jul 10, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson <o...@ogud.com> wrote: >> >>> Question: >>> What sections of 2181 do you see the need to update? >> >> This seems to be the critical question to your chairs and our AD as well. >> >> If I understand it correctly, your proposed document roadmap has us putting >> eight documents through the process as standards-track RFCs with no change >> in substance from RFC 2181, so we can then put three more documents through >> the process with new content. This seems like a very process-heavy way to >> update 2181. >> >> It's also hard to commit to obsoleting 2181 in eight separate steps without >> seeing the proposed updated content will be, or knowing whether it will get >> to consensus. >> >> Could you describe the substance of what you think needs to be changed? If >> the WG wants to do the work, we can manage the process machinery accordingly. >> >> >> thanks, >> Suzanne >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
