Re: [DNSOP] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 1:28 PM Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Just on this point:
>
> > On 2. Dec 2019, at 23:42, Dave Lawrence <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> 2) I find the Implementation Status section (8) actually quite
> >> interesting for this document and maybe it should be considered to
> >> keep it in the document for final publication.
> >
> > I personally am in favor of this, not just for this document but for
> > all RFCs.   RFC 6982 recommends that the section be removed, but I'd
> > be happy to help evolve that recommendation.
>
> RFC6982 recommends this because usually it's more important to have this information during the life-time of a draft (to understand the maturity of the protocol) but then it might quickly get out-dated after publication. However, we had also drafts were we retained the section for final publication because e.g. the whole draft was based on one specific implementation. I think that is also the case here and there is nothing in RFC6982 that permits keeping this information in the draft (if it seen as still useful in future).

Note: Author hat only.

I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect you meant: "I think that is also the
case here and there is nothing in RFC6982 that **prevents** keeping
this ..."?
I'm personally in favor of keeping the information - even if it ends
up out of date, it still seems useful to me.

W


>
> Mirja
>
>


-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf