On 14/07/2015 18:15, Tim Wicinski 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.
Tony.
Tony
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.
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.
Tim,
After a quick read of -03 I would saay the draft is in much better shape
than last time I read it. I wouldn't call it a turkey, but I do agree
with Tony that deferring anything contentious to a -bis is a bad way
forward, especially for a draft that is only 3 months old (since the -00).
regards
John
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
