All,

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:33:59 -0400
Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> 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 totally agree, on all counts.

Cheers,

--
Shane

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to