Re: [dnsext] Want this to be a WG doc?

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

So far I have comments from three people added to the next version-to-be.

Frankly, there isn't a lot to this document and it's based on 
observations.  I don't see it as being all that interesting or in 
need of much "work" despite the fact that inputs to date have 
improved the document.

The answer I seek now is whether this comes in as a -00 in WG name or 
goes to a -02 version under a personal submission.  (I.e., window 
dressing.)

All in all, the WG has shown a low amount of energy for this (rightly 
so) but when I tried independent submission I was told this is a 
matter for the WG to look at.  The old "catch-22" (see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_22).

The IANA editor has informally expressed support for this as a way to 
clean up dangling references in the DNS parameters page.  This is the 
reason the document has resurfaced.

So, WG or not?  Individual or not?  I just want to get this moving and done.

At 11:17 +0200 3/29/12, Edward Lewis wrote:
>Any thoughts on whether the following would be a DNSEXT document? 
>I'm asking DNSOP too.
>
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-dns-undocumented-types-01

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at [phone]

2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!