On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/14/15 12:26 PM, Tony Finch wrote: > >> Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> This is still contentious, and I think it really should be deferred to >>> the >>> -bis document for longer discussion and hopefully consensus. >>> >> >> As far as I can tell from the last few months there is a fairly clear >> consensus that the current draft is not good enough. Brushing off >> suggestions by saying that we'll publish a turkey then fix it up later is >> not a good way to encourage people to contribute. >> > > > I would have to disagree with you on the consensus. There was many > comments on the draft, and the authors did an admirable job addressing them > and attempting to find common ground. > Hi Tim, You'll excuse my lack of familiarity with the process, but what is the current status of this draft (not a -bis version), in terms of opportunities for continued feedback and modification by the WG? I realize that it has been in the WG for a while, has been sent to the AD, and WG comments have tapered off some. But your wording sounds somewhat definite. I do understand that the authors have done a great job addressing comments and attempting to get consensus and common ground. That being said, this document covers a lot of ground, and it has been noted that there are points on which there is not consensus--even points that are contentious. Perhaps what would be helpful is to identify which definitions in the document don't have consensus--and (if possible) even which parts of those definitions are problematic. Focusing on those points, rather than the document as a whole, will allow the WG to determine whether consensus can be found on those definitions or whether they should be minimized sufficiently to avoid the contention and fleshed out at a later time (i.e., in a -bis document). I feel like there is a difference between settling on "what's there" and settling on something "minimal". The decision was made to first document all existing terminology in one > place, regardless of how accurate it is to the world today; and then take > time to generate a revised document where many definitions would be > updated, and other documents partially obsoleted. But I would not call it > a turkey. > I am also concerned about the apparent urgency to get the initial document out with points that admittedly remain contentious and/or where there isn't WG consensus. I don't think it needs perfection, but it seems unnecessary to get the document published without further explicitly identifying and considering the standing issues. We've haven't had this document before--I'm not sure what the rush is now. Best regards, Casey
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
