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
