> On 16 Jul 2015, at 03:15, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org > <mailto:paul.hoff...@vpnc.org>> wrote: > > On 15 Jul 2015, at 17:33, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> >> Just on this issue, and speaking only for myself (but as one of the >> people behind this document), my view is that this WG has historically >> been one of the places where documents go to die, and I am unwilling >> to go through the exercise of proving again how great an enemy of the >> good the perfect can be. I'd be much more inclined to remove the >> contentious definitions and publish that document than to try to get >> things perfect.
Firstly to say that I think this is a very worthy effort and the document will be of great value to the DNS community. It should be published and I support the proposal that removing contentious definitions to get the draft published is the a best way to proceed. >> >> I agree and acknowledge that there remain some definitions in there >> that are contentious. > > Not only do you agree and acknowledge that, *so does the document*. I have to disagree that the document goes that far - the first sentence of the third paragraph in the introduction states: “The definitions here are believed to be the consensus definition of the DNS community, both protocol developers and operators.” and paragraph 5 “In this document, where the consensus definition is the same as the one in an RFC, that RFC is quoted. Where the consensus definition has changed somewhat, the RFC is mentioned but the new stand-alone definition is given." so I don’t believe any definitions that are considered contentious should be in the document if this wording is to be retained. > Based on the contention and lack of consensus for some of the definitions, > the Introduction now says: > > During the development of this document, it became clear that some > DNS-related terms are interpreted quite differently by different DNS experts. > Further, some terms that are defined in early DNS RFCs now have definitions > that are generally agreed to that are different from the original > definitions. Therefore, the authors intend to follow this document with a > substantial revision in the not-distant future. That revision will probably > have more in-depth discussion of some terms as well as new terms; it will > also update some of the RFCs with new definitions. Since this paragraph appears after the first statement about consensus I read it as indicating the bis is likely to refine and extend the original document (fine) but not that readers should expect some definitions presented here to substantially change in a later revision. Sara.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
