On 31 March 2018 at 17:27, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > > >> >> I think the RFC series as a whole needs to contain both, but I'm not >> saying that both should exist simultaneously for any given set of >> documents within the RFC series. >> > > i think you are.
I'm really not. > > > I think we've reached a point where the time series for DNS has >> become so complex and convoluted that it's time for a reset to make >> it readable again. We can then carry on patching that with >> time-series documents if we want, but the rewrite will give us a new >> baseline that's coherent and complete, which we don't have today. >> > > there's a carrier wave in that time series, which has its own wave form. > at the end of each epoch, we'll be back where we are today, without a > coherent or complete document set. we'd be moving from failing to plan, to > planning to fail. let's make a better move. > That's a pretty cynical view. Do you not think the specifications being written today are better than they used to be? to achieve the goals you stated earlier, there would have to be both the > time series of changes, and the timeless document full of lineouts. bert's > "DNS Illustrated" github site is an example of the latter, and a starting > point for it, if we wish. If we had a better baseline, and if our Updates documents were clearer about what they change in older documents, that line-out would be a pretty trivial document to maintain, and might not even be necessary.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
