On Fri, 7 Feb 2025, Peter Thomassen wrote:
From an OPSDIR point of view, I noticed that some references about the
deployment are provided in section 7 on "Implementation Status". Since this
section is supposed to be removed before publication, I would rather keep
it
and summarize the main results of the implementation especially with
regards to
interoperability and backwards compatibility aspects.
To prevent implementation-specific text from not aging well, we could replace
Section 7 with something like:
At least on open source implementation already exist and at least one
TLD registry is currently implementing this as an upcoming service.
However, it's unclear where that text could live (it hardly justifies its own
section), or whether it would even address your concern. The authors would
appreciate your suggestion.
I think we usually remove the implementation status section when an I-D
turns into an
RFC. It's useful to show there's enough interest to publish it, but once
it's published, it doesn't matter and as others have noted it rapidly
becomes wrong.
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
