Document Shepherd hat on I asked Peter to add the section primarily for the last call process and IESG review. To prevent anyone saying “had anyone implemented this?”
Thanks Tim Sent from my iPhone On Feb 7, 2025, at 12:28, John R. Levine <[email protected]> wrote: 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]
