Re: [dnsext] WG Review: Recharter of DNS Extensions (dnsext)

[Olafur Gudmundsson <[e-mail]>]

At 05:27 15/07/2009, João Damas wrote:

>On 15 Jul 2009, at 07:36, Roy Arends wrote:
>
>>
>> > The above sounds like two volunteers :-)  Anyone else?
>>
>>I prefer rfc form. Like 4033/4/5 was for 2535 and subsequent
>>updates. I volunteer.
>
>So do I, again.
>I do like the web site approach for putting this together. When it is
>at a stage that deserves taking a snapshot in the form of an RFC, then
>that can be done, but a visible web site would be a good thing. I have
>a feeling last time around this effort wasn't helped by the closed
>nature of the text repository.
>
>Joao

I would like to make the suggestion that we attack this as a two phase project
the first phase is to create a web site with most of the content
the second phase is to actually take the and generate RFC's.

This way we can hopefully quickly get a 
reasonable skeleton, and figure out what
to argue about.

I have battle-scars from dealing with large documents with many moving parts
as people argue only about one section at the time.
Further allowing people to edit their own sections with tracking of changes
as an experiment is something we have not done but I'm curious to see what
will happen.

Further more web site can be more "content" rich than RFC and illustrations
IMHO will help us reach consensus faster than pure text.


         Olafur


--
to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>