On 15 Jul 2015, at 17:33, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:43:12PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote:
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.
Just on this issue, and speaking only for myself (but as one of the
people behind this document), my view is that this WG has historically
been one of the places where documents go to die, and I am unwilling
to go through the exercise of proving again how great an enemy of the
good the perfect can be. I'd be much more inclined to remove the
contentious definitions and publish that document than to try to get
things perfect.
I agree and acknowledge that there remain some definitions in there
that are contentious.
Not only do you agree and acknowledge that, *so does the document*.
Based on the contention and lack of consensus for some of the
definitions, the Introduction now says:
During the development of this document, it became clear that some
DNS-related terms are interpreted quite differently by different DNS
experts. Further, some terms that are defined in early DNS RFCs now have
definitions that are generally agreed to that are different from the
original definitions. Therefore, the authors intend to follow this
document with a substantial revision in the not-distant future. That
revision will probably have more in-depth discussion of some terms as
well as new terms; it will also update some of the RFCs with new
definitions.
If there is something more that can be said in the document, by all
means let us know.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
