IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Moving forward with DNS Stateful Operations

Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> Thu, 02 August 2018 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <pusateri@bangj.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60235130DEF; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 08:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 JIB1mwdzyC0U; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 08:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oj.bangj.com (amt0.gin.ntt.net [129.250.11.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DD4B124C04; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 08:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from butte.lan (unknown [107.13.241.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oj.bangj.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98A144E5; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 11:40:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
Message-Id: <8FB5807C-68FE-4367-8268-8D965A4AE72C@bangj.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_37183460-7DDA-4861-A19D-99D7B292B8E9"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 11:43:06 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1n6nmPPnNUQxAw1g-kX_d+LTrdrCE900BPNOHKR5Jjc6g@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal@ietf.org, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
References: <CAPt1N1n6nmPPnNUQxAw1g-kX_d+LTrdrCE900BPNOHKR5Jjc6g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/5LEYkYxu-juocW_iFh9fn15bn_Y>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Moving forward with DNS Stateful Operations
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 15:43:11 -0000

> On Aug 2, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> We got some really good review during the IESG last call process.   Thanks to the IESG members (bcc) who read the document thoroughly and gave so many thoughtful comments.
> 
> I believe that we have addressed all of the comments that were made during the review adequately.  However, this hasn't been thoroughly reviewed; we should do a thorough review of these changes.   In order to facilitate that, I've submitted a -14 (on top of last night's -13), so the diffs to look at are between -12 and -14, not, e.g., just -13 and -14.   You can get the diffs here: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-14&url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12 <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-14&url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12>
> 
> Note that because I added an applicability section, all of the IESG comments about sections after 4 are off by one.
> 
>  The one remaining nit is that at least two and possibly three of the ADs commented that the terminology section has a lot of normative language in it and generally talks a lot about things that are really specification, not terminology.
> 
> I responded to this by saying that we'd discussed this as a group, agreed it wasn't great, and decided it was more work to fix than it was worth.   However, at the moment I actually have a lot of state on this document in my head, and I think I could fix this without it being too much work or introducing errors.   But doing so would impose extra workload at least on the authors, and maybe on the working group, to review the changes I make and make sure I don't screw something up.
> 
> Is there appetite for doing this?   I think it would significantly improve the document, but I am mindful of the expense.

I could go either way on this. I don’t mind doing another review if others think this is worthwhile but I also don’t think it’s a problem as is.

Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email