IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Current DNS standards, drafts & charter

Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org> Tue, 27 March 2018 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ondrej@isc.org>
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 6042C12D77A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 5TZnMRqTUhdY for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B66E8127863 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3781B3AB06A; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:27:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17ED3160084; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:27:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7CFE160083; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:27:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id IdZP5yVuzjqz; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:27:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.10.0.192] (40.20.broadband5.iol.cz [88.100.20.40]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F52116003A; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:27:51 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-46652670-F924-4F17-9E07-BA7D05A09CD5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15D100)
In-Reply-To: <CAAiTEH8aA3J1j4iUQDisDHiUJXopykKkssuhOK=v+iVV_XZWyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:27:48 +0200
Cc: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <469C5B5F-A6F0-4D07-9314-F0DA8A61F2A4@isc.org>
References: <20180326154645.GB24771@server.ds9a.nl> <CA3D81B6-164F-4607-A7E6-B999B90C4DA8@gmail.com> <5852643C-B414-4C3E-A1B9-553054D3DD46@isc.org> <CAAiTEH8aA3J1j4iUQDisDHiUJXopykKkssuhOK=v+iVV_XZWyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/En5cl5MPfGgNMjZN6GUTRdysQ08>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Current DNS standards, drafts & charter
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:27:54 -0000

Definitely. I didn’t mean to rewrite 1:1, but take existing content and do m:n including splitting and combining existing RFCs into new document(s).

Ondřej 
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC

> On 27 Mar 2018, at 18:19, Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 27 March 2018 at 03:49, Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Again, from experience from dnsext, I would strongly suggest that any work in this area is split into CHANGE documents and REWRITE documents, with strict scope. Documents rewriting existing RFCs while adding more stuff at the same time tend to not reach the finish line.
>> 
> Does this include combining documents?  For example, it would probably make sense to combine some of the clarifications documents into any rewrite of 1034/1035. 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email