Re: [DNSOP] On some terminology in draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize (truncation)

[Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 3, 2014, at 1:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 10:46:25AM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> a protocol clarification (not a change, which dnsop can't by charter
>> make) 
> 
> I really don't think our biggest problem is making the RFC publication
> mechanisms move.  If we determine this is a "change" in some sense
> because it's clarifying the meaning of the protocol, we can send it up
> via AD sponsorship or run it through the INT area WG or whatever.  I
> think it's very valuable to get some clear idea of what we think
> first, though.

We can also bring up the relevant restriction in the charter discussion Friday. If it's useful to be more flexible about this, we can work on making the case with our AD.

I really really really don't want this kind of thing to be a barrier to getting the work done. If people are willing to swap the document back in, review it a little more (this discussion is a good start, thank you!) and get whatever substantive work remains on it knocked down, your WG chairs are perfectly willing to work on the machinery.


Suzanne