Re: [DNSOP] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09: (with COMMENT)
Op 17 sep. 2023 om 17:40 heeft Murray S. Kucherawy het volgende geschreven: > The reason I'm asking, though, is that we had 7719 in 2015, which was > replaced by 8499 in 2019, and now this revision. Since we consider RFCs > expensive to produce, I thought it was a reasonable question to ask. I think it's a reasonable question. Keeping track of our terminology to the extent that there is appetite to do so with a document every four years sounds like success to me, though. If we couldn't manage that, I might suggest we were in trouble. Joe ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09: (with COMMENT)
On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 7:53 AM Tim Wicinski wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 5:01 AM Joe Abley wrote: > >> Hi Murray! >> >> Op 17 sep. 2023 om 08:07 heeft Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker < >> nore...@ietf.org> het volgende geschreven: >> >> > I thought the IESG (though maybe not this particular one) had previously >> > discouraged publishing "living documents" like this one in the RFC >> series. So >> > why aren't we doing this as a wiki page or something? Not a hill I >> care to die >> > on, but I'd like to understand. >> >> I find it handy when I write a document that includes DNS terms to cite >> the current terminology document rather than make up my own definitions. >> >> The particular citation I use in a document matches the meaning of the >> terms that were intended in my document. Definitions change from time to >> time, but the intention of my document remains clear even if subsequent >> terminology documents are published. >> >> How do I do that with a wiki page? >> >> >> > Murray > > I have to agree with Joe here. > > And I have never heard of this IESG mandate, but I am always impressed > that they make such statements, and yet have no alternative ideas for such > things. > Perhaps if we focused on making the RFCs have release versions, "DNS > Terminology 4.0" could have this definition. > First, I never said it was a mandate or, as Paul suggested, a policy. It's just come up before when processing other documents and this situation seems similar to me, so I'm wondering where that thought process went. I've seen comments and even ABSTAIN ballot positions that object to publication of informational documents that "could've been a wiki", and living documents are often candidates for such consideration. So here we are. The reason I'm asking, though, is that we had 7719 in 2015, which was replaced by 8499 in 2019, and now this revision. Since we consider RFCs expensive to produce, I thought it was a reasonable question to ask. -MSK ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09: (with COMMENT)
On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 5:01 AM Joe Abley wrote: > Hi Murray! > > Op 17 sep. 2023 om 08:07 heeft Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker < > nore...@ietf.org> het volgende geschreven: > > > I thought the IESG (though maybe not this particular one) had previously > > discouraged publishing "living documents" like this one in the RFC > series. So > > why aren't we doing this as a wiki page or something? Not a hill I care > to die > > on, but I'd like to understand. > > I find it handy when I write a document that includes DNS terms to cite > the current terminology document rather than make up my own definitions. > > The particular citation I use in a document matches the meaning of the > terms that were intended in my document. Definitions change from time to > time, but the intention of my document remains clear even if subsequent > terminology documents are published. > > How do I do that with a wiki page? > > > Murray I have to agree with Joe here. And I have never heard of this IESG mandate, but I am always impressed that they make such statements, and yet have no alternative ideas for such things. Perhaps if we focused on making the RFCs have release versions, "DNS Terminology 4.0" could have this definition. tim not cut out for IESG middle management Joe > > ___ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09: (with COMMENT)
Hi Murray! Op 17 sep. 2023 om 08:07 heeft Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker het volgende geschreven: > I thought the IESG (though maybe not this particular one) had previously > discouraged publishing "living documents" like this one in the RFC series. So > why aren't we doing this as a wiki page or something? Not a hill I care to > die > on, but I'd like to understand. I find it handy when I write a document that includes DNS terms to cite the current terminology document rather than make up my own definitions. The particular citation I use in a document matches the meaning of the terms that were intended in my document. Definitions change from time to time, but the intention of my document remains clear even if subsequent terminology documents are published. How do I do that with a wiki page? Joe ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09: (with COMMENT)
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis/ -- COMMENT: -- I thought the IESG (though maybe not this particular one) had previously discouraged publishing "living documents" like this one in the RFC series. So why aren't we doing this as a wiki page or something? Not a hill I care to die on, but I'd like to understand. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
