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
