On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:33 AM, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, Salz, Rich wrote: > > [ speaking as individual only ] > > On the other hand, spending a week or two repeating a cycle to get an > important term in the current document seems like a better solution. > > If the WG agrees that this is an important term, sure. > > Well, if the IETF has consensus :) I'm raising the issue during this last > call that "round-robin" should be in the list of defined terms. > > I would say that if the WG didn't think it was important at the time by > forgetting it, it probably is not an "important term", and I can see this > not being fixed in an IETF LC anymore as an acceptable outcome. > > Especially as the DNS Terminology document seems to be getting refreshed > pretty regularly to begin with. > I believe that we should consider adding round robin in the *next* version of this document; this one has already had a (very extended) last call, and we could easily get stuck in an endless loop of "just adding another term"/ Also, this sort of document would have been an ideal test case for "Living Documents", but that particular effort never came to fruition[0]. W [0]: After 8+ meetings, including a side meeting / BoF I realized that consensus seemed unlikely. Almost everyone agreed that we needed something like this, but almost everyone had a different idea of what it should look like… > But also, I didn't find a good definition of round robin in existing RFCs > either. There is a mention in rfc1794 but it doesn't really define the term > there. So I am not sure what the DNS Terminology document would reference? > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
