On 2013-12-07, at 11:33, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alas, this document is definitely not ready for publication as an RFC. It > still is very unclear which parts are restatements of RFC 6304, which are > changes, and which are speculative. Appendix B makes an attempt to make this > clearer, but fails spectacularly by saying that Appendix B should be removed > from the final document. I agree that it's not quite ready for last call, as it stands right now. I was slightly surprised to see the wg last call start, given that (as mentioned in Vancouver, and in the text you quoted) there was an open question about a successor to 6304. > I propose that this document be scrapped completely, and that the RFC 6304 > successor simply be published with these changes. That new document should > have what is Appendix B of this document as a sub-section of its introduction > (because the changes are significant), and should retain Appendix A of this > document (because it shows due diligence for the changes). I could see that working. I could also see this document proceeding, documenting the change in approach, and a separate document being written to update 6304. It would be good to hear the wider working group's opinion on the preferred direction. Joe
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
