On 3/13/17 7:07 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Why "after" and not "during"? That is, if the WG document tells how this > one method of achieving a set of goals works, why not also document > other options that could have, and might in the future, be adopted? That > would certainly give the reader more context.
I have to say that I find it a little odd that a document constrained to describing current practice or a currently deployed protocol would be adopted by a working group - usually I'd expect that to be an individual submission. The benefits brought by going through the working group process and developing a working group consensus about the document seem pretty limited in that context. What were the authors hoping to get out of going through the working group process? Melinda
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
