Paul,
- "Further, some terms that
are defined in early DNS RFCs now have definitions that are generally
agreed to, but 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."
You lost me here. Do you want a new revision of this document, or
revisions of early DNS RFCs, or both?
And why do you say "That revision will probably have more in-depth
discussion of some terms".
Does it mean that THIS document is not final? This is the way I read it.
You read it correctly. The WG came to agreement on the need for a
document that repeated the definitions from the RFCs in one place,
that we should point out where RFCs disagreed with each other, that
this RFC should not update RFCs even if their definitions are wrong,
and that a later revision of this document will update those RFCs. The
reason for that last point is that there were a fair number of places
where the WG could not come to consensus yet, but might later with
significantly more work.
Thanks for the background information. I guess this process makes sense.
However, the way the text is written lowers the relevance of this document.
Here is my reading/understanding:
"Further, some terms that
are defined in early DNS RFCs now have definitions that are generally
agreed to, but that are different from the original definitions.
So far, I'm thinking. You guys did a terrific job, as you arrived to
some to agreed definitions. Great.
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
Then, I don't understand "therefore, we need a new revision with more
discussions"
So I start wondering: So this is a temp work (because the new revisions
will obviously obsolete this document). And you want a "substantial"
revision, with more discussions. So either the work is not complete, or
there is no consensus...
as well as new
terms; it will also update some of the RFCs with new definitions."
Proposal (but remember it's a COMMENT, not a DISCUSS, so listen to your
responsible AD)
Either you remove this paragraph (because expressing your intend
shouldn't be part of the RFC), or you express it differently. Something
such as:
Now that a single document contains all DNS-related definitions, now
that the different conflicting definitions in early DNS RFCs have
been agreed
upon, a later revision of this document will update all the RFCs,
when required. The
reason for the phase approach is that checking every DNS RFCs for
consistency with this
updated terms might result in some updates. Additionally, some new
terms might be required.
I'm not in love with this paragraph, but I've been trying to introduce a
more positive spin to it.
Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
