[email protected] wrote: >> It is definitely worth doing if there is energy.
> Agree.
> My favorite roadmap doc in IETF is:
Good examples.
Subsequent to my hitting send while watching the recording, someone suggested
that we should do this *after* DELEG, and I agree that we *should* (also!) do it
after DELEG is out there. (Not just RFC, but ubiquitously available, even if
not commonly used).
We are close to RFC10000. Maybe we can publish this as RFC10034 :-)
But, that's exactly why we should do it once *before* DELEG as well.
> (2015) RFC7414 (A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
Specification Documents)
> (2006) RFC4614 (A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
Specification Documents)
> If there are volunteers for similar DNS work, I would be definitely
supportive. As the coverage is much complex that TCP, some scoping would ne
needed for this effort to be successful. The approach followed in RFC9364 to
zoom into dnssec is pragmatic.
> Cheers,
> Med
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Michael Richardson <[email protected]>
>> Envoyé : vendredi 21 novembre 2025 21:33
>> À : [email protected]
>> Objet : [DNSOP] comments about "roadmap" document
>>
>>
>> I guess this is about:
>>
>> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>> datatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-hoffman-
>> rfc9364bis%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Cda17
>> 6258a1604b58fb2808de293d3ba4%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C
>> 0%7C0%7C638993540140279329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGk
>> iOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUI
>> joyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yneQ%2FhUqmohCid2og8%2BlhlR0A1K5CvC
>> oUWx7UlsZCvY%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> which does not have the word "roadmap" in it. I consider that a
>> bug!
>> So I had to read the agenda + minutes to be sure I was looking at
>> the right document.
>>
>> As Paul said at the mic, IPsec also did this... only once.
>> Will we have to keep revising it? Yes, sure, but.
>>
>> Is it a failure because IPsec only did this once? No.
>> IPsec just hasn't revised it *yet* :-)
>>
>> A new roadmap document every 1-2 decades is fine.
>> It is definitely worth doing if there is energy.
>>
>> {If I had my process druthers, there would be a more easily
>> updatable document like this that actually defined our STDs. It
>> would be able to reference both Internet Standards, and other
>> documents (which might be in *decline*)}
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT
>> consulting )
>> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>>
>>
>>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme
ou falsifie. Merci.
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
