Re: [DNSOP] Moving forward with DNS Stateful Operations

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

I think it would probably shorten the document by a page, and make it
marginally easier to read, but I tend to agree that best is the enemy of
good enough here.

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Tom Pusateri <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On Aug 2, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> 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
>
> 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
>