On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 01:17:52PM -0800, Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> On 2012-02-06, at 14:12, <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks to Warren, Ed, John D., David C. and Kato-san for their
> > comments/corrections.
> > Any more?
>
> I see you added some text based on our conversation in sunny Christchurch,
> thanks for that. As promised, here's a summary of that conversation for the
> list(s).
>
[elided]
>
> In summary, I think the document should be substantially reorganised. This
> makes it difficult to provide a meaningful line-by-line critique. However, I
> am very happy to put my money where my mouth is and copy-edit/reorganise
> along the lines I'm thinking if that seems like a useful way to explain
> myself. I don't think the -04 draft, even with copy-editing, is useful to
> publish as-is.
>
>
> Joe
I had a similar conversation with Terry (check the thread archives).
Effectively what you propose is a "clean slate" instead of building
off existing work and actual practice. I think that is a fabulou
idea but it has a couple of caveats:
) it will take considerable time to reach consensus within the operator
community,
let alone the large community.
) it will not reflect actual practice but an ideal to be achieved.
I think that starting work on such a draft is a great idea -BUT- in the
mean time
do not let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". I beleive Terry
agreed with
that line of thnking. Of the existing Operators, A, B, E, G, H, J, L,
and M have
made positive comments and worked on upgrading this base text provided
by one of
the Operators. Is your opinion / argument strong enough to stop work
on this draft?
That said, I'd love to see a revamped version, if youhave the time to
copy-edit/reorgnize
the document.
/bill
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
