On 7/15/15 10:15 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
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
Also, the document took the approach early on of documenting what existing RFCs said in one place. When it became clear that what the RFCs say may not be how people currently use the term, the consensus in the working group was to document the existing definition, and flag it as in disagreement. Once this document was pushed out, *then* the revised draft could actually update old RFCs.
As chair, I also felt that once this draft is published (and all contention removed), it would become something that would be part of the document shepherding process - to make sure new RFCs actually used accurate terminology. But that may be a pipe dream.
I do think the authors have done an impressive job considering the scope of the document and the depth and breath of comments.
tim _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
