On 4 okt. 2015, at 20:27, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2015, at 2:00 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > >> I've since been told that the draft doesn't actually document current >> practice (don't know the details), so this probably needs to be fixed. > > What "needs to be fixed"? That the draft doesn't document current practice? > Given that's the stated goal, I'd appreciate clarification from the authors > on what they think needs to be done before it meets that goal, and whether > they're willing to work on it. As far as I'm aware, the document does document current practice. At least, what it describes was true back in 2010 when I wrote the code and as far as I know nothing as changed (i.e., the published files has not changed). >>> Well, as a technicality, I don't see that this draft was ever adopted by >>> the WG. >> >> Perhaps that might be a good next step? > > Might be. I was attempting to suggest a shorter path to publication might be > possible, given the extensive record of discussion on the document over > several years-- we've been known to do a combined adoption/WGLC on a document > not expected to need much work in the WG. I'm not sure what adoption would give us as the document aims to document current practice, and nothing - except clarifications - is up for discussion. jakob _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop