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

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

On 15 Jul 2015, at 17:33, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:43:12PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote:
>> I am also concerned about the apparent urgency to get the initial 
>> document
>> out with points that admittedly remain contentious and/or where there 
>> isn't
>> WG consensus.  I don't think it needs perfection, but it seems 
>> unnecessary
>> to get the document published without further explicitly identifying 
>> and
>> considering the standing issues.  We've haven't had this document
>> before--I'm not sure what the rush is now.
>
> Just on this issue, and speaking only for myself (but as one of the
> people behind this document), my view is that this WG has historically
> been one of the places where documents go to die, and I am unwilling
> to go through the exercise of proving again how great an enemy of the
> good the perfect can be.  I'd be much more inclined to remove the
> contentious definitions and publish that document than to try to get
> things perfect.
>
> I agree and acknowledge that there remain some definitions in there
> that are contentious.

Not only do you agree and acknowledge that, *so does the document*. 
Based on the contention and lack of consensus for some of the 
definitions, the Introduction now says:

During the development of this document, it became clear that some 
DNS-related terms are interpreted quite differently by different DNS 
experts. Further, some terms that are defined in early DNS RFCs now have 
definitions that are generally agreed to that are different from the 
original definitions. Therefore, the authors intend to follow this 
document with a substantial revision in the not-distant future. That 
revision will probably have more in-depth discussion of some terms as 
well as new terms; it will also update some of the RFCs with new 
definitions.

If there is something more that can be said in the document, by all 
means let us know.

--Paul Hoffman