Hi Eric, On 28 Sep 2023, at 18:15, Eric Orth <erico...@google.com> wrote:
> Minor remaining complaints (that I'm not going to fight over, so ignore if > you really disagree): > * I think all the stuff now in the appendix would be even better as a > separate Informational draft. In my mind, appendix is acceptable, but still > feels like you feel it is necessary as justification for the standards change. The idea was to anticipate and answer two questions, "isn't this already clear enough in the existing DNS spec?" and "why is this only being specified here for OPCODE 0?" We could provide supporting text for both of those things in a different document, but it's not entirely clear what that would buy us beyond the general cost of producing a document. I can't imagine a situation where someone would want to cite one of those documents but not the other, for example. It's not like the appendix is tremendously long, and now that we have the garnish on the side it doesn't provide much distraction from the main sandwich. We could also forget about the supporting text altogether, but it always seems worthwhile to me to record the motivation for particular clarifications in existing standards, especially when the protocol is foundational and widely-deployed. (I see this as a clarification of the standard, not a change to it.) So I'm inclined to disagree. > * The Introduction still includes a bit of justification discussion about > ambiguity, whereas I would argue that the more pressing justification is > simply ecosystem compatibility. Well, interop and ambiguity are related, so I'm not sure those things are really in opposition. We can certainly add text to make it clearer that the end goal is interoperability if that seems like it makes the purpose of the document clearer. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
