Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

John Dickinson <jad@sinodun.com> Wed, 15 July 2015 09:55 UTC

Return-Path: <jad@sinodun.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4621A024E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 02:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92z2-g6o4FIL for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 02:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shcp01.hosting.zen.net.uk (shcp01.hosting.zen.net.uk [88.98.24.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C3FE1A024C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 02:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [62.232.251.194] (port=32453 helo=Rhubarb.local) by shcp01.hosting.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <jad@sinodun.com>) id 1ZFJPK-0002gF-60 for dnsop@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:19 +0100
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CAEKtLiQWPM6yJZZASQ5k1bzsbHc3jv5FRsJ6ifgUdj9TRLCmRg@mail.gmail.com> <83A64168-3510-4E0B-AA23-54547C05990B@vpnc.org> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1507141719130.32296@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <55A543CD.6010008@gmail.com>
From: John Dickinson <jad@sinodun.com>
Message-ID: <55A62E07.4060503@sinodun.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:19 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55A543CD.6010008@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - shcp01.hosting.zen.net.uk
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - sinodun.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: shcp01.hosting.zen.net.uk: authenticated_id: jad+sinodun.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/3hkUdfQ_VuupSCdJAHgYG7SxsWg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:55:24 -0000


On 14/07/2015 18:15, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> On 7/14/15 12:26 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
>> Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is still contentious, and I think it really should be deferred
>>> to the
>>> -bis document for longer discussion and hopefully consensus.
>>
>> As far as I can tell from the last few months there is a fairly clear
>> consensus that the current draft is not good enough. Brushing off
>> suggestions by saying that we'll publish a turkey then fix it up later is
>> not a good way to encourage people to contribute.
>>
>> Tony.
>>
>
>
> Tony
>
> I would have to disagree with you on the consensus.  There was many
> comments on the draft, and the authors did an admirable job addressing
> them and attempting to find common ground.
>
> The decision was made to first document all existing terminology in one
> place, regardless of how accurate it is to the world today; and then
> take time to generate a revised document where many definitions would be
> updated, and other documents partially obsoleted.  But I would not call
> it a turkey.
>

Tim,

After a quick read of -03 I would saay the draft is in much better shape 
than last time I read it. I wouldn't call it a turkey, but I do agree 
with Tony that deferring anything contentious to a -bis is a bad way 
forward, especially for a draft that is only 3 months old (since the -00).

regards
John