Dealing with toxic waste names is out of scope for the problem statement.
The problem of toxic waste names is mentioned in the tldr problem statement
as a problem, which could potentially be dealt with if the working group
decides it's in scope. That's why the document is written the way it is.
Remember, the point of this document is not to supersede RFC 6761: it's
to describe the problem that we have been moved to solve as a result of the
challenges we have faced and the things we have learned while trying to
follow the process described in RFC 6761.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 7:43 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
> >To John's point, short isn't actually good, because it's important to
> >document the context--
> No, really, short is essential. I'm happy to add the context once we
> have a concise statement of what the problem is.
> > But we tried to keep the actual
> >problem statement short and pithy; if you really think it's too long,
> >perhaps you could suggest shorter wordings that still capture the actual
> Ah. See previous message for some examples. In neither of the
> documents can I tell whether dealing with the toxic waste names is
> supposed to be in or out of scope.
DNSOP mailing list