Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Avri, thanks for the markups--I will take care of the ones that are
actionable, and respond in a separate message, because I want to address
the question of merging explicitly, along with John's comment about brevity.

Why not merge the two documents?  This sounds reasonable on the surface,
but please understand how we got here.   The chairs asked the design team
to write a document.   Certain members of the design team wrote a document,
the initial version of which was published prior to the Yokohama IETF.   A
second version was published prior to Buenos Aires, and I decided that I
should really read it and send comments.

I read the document, wrote about four pages of comments, realized that my
comments were going to be longer than the document, and decided to talk to
people in the community before continuing.  I went out and talked to
various people in the community in Buenos Aires, including someone from
ICANN, members of the IAB, working group participants, the author of RFC
6761, members of the adpkja design team, and various others, and concluded,
based on those conversations, that we needed a new document.   Based on
that, I wrote a document that _does not reflect my personal opinion_, and
then bounced it off Ralph, one of the adpkja design team members, to see if
I'd done okay.   He had some suggestions, which were incorporated.

So the document as it stands is an attempt, which I believe was successful,
to enumerate a comprehensive set of problems relating to the problem 6761
attempted to address, as expressed by the various people I consulted.
These people are mentioned by name in the acknowledgments section.   I
didn't consult everybody, but I think most of the people whom I didn't
consult agree with what's in adpkja, which I read thoroughly, so I believe
I captured their positions as well.  Importantly, the people I consulted do
not all agree on what the scope of the problem is; that's why it was so
important to collect all of their input.

Both sets of authors have already incorporated into their respective
documents what they think is good about the other document.   Either
document, effectively, contains what that set of authors thinks a merge
should look like.   So suggesting a merge at this point doesn't make sense.
  What we really need to know is which document the working group thinks is
a better starting place.   If there's something missing from that document
that the working group wants to add, they can do so after it is adopted.

To John's point, short isn't actually good, because it's important to
document the context--this is a fairly important discussion, and it doesn't
make sense to lose the history of it.   But we tried to keep the actual
problem statement short and pithy; if you really think it's too long,
perhaps you could suggest shorter wordings that still capture the actual
problems.