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

Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> Mon, 03 March 2014 19:00 UTC

Return-Path: <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3351A034E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:00:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Wyn1eX656LYG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:00:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81AC61A0357 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:00:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id z12so3718373wgg.17 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 11:00:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Bn/3bvkSJFW5IwDgpfoneSRRMdL7Bah+eLqJ4Y2bLCM=; b=nxJtHCnd4fm1FyxJqlCQ2Ql/Ook+gFHyEIhZFZpnm6SvQ98AmRIRHs+Clxl3d+td0T qTKxFuNf5g2nQdE8ElAj9sNH9v6dNvEYL6JyJuFSdjVRdVBG+Q1IZ1wed3wm49m6hWN+ AFLnYNS4jgXD6e6hDEumaBtCQ2F547EoOhga1yo5GeAud925Lo7JJ6SeGvLL71YQFEg1 oFt4PluWztR1iwOA185MkikANfQXzvwd4BE58X0LaM0GMp4kF4DarfuvarYH83tSSj4y iGoEZoe4fwNEvlvNnrRG0M4dGRCFAE76l88KugiM/a5P/nNWJzyREN4b/iXaKNmE5jAf uR/Q==
X-Received: by 10.194.81.164 with SMTP id b4mr16488624wjy.2.1393873227045; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 11:00:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-a7e7.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-a7e7.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.167.231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dd3sm39527543wjb.9.2014.03.03.11.00.25 for <dnsop@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Mar 2014 11:00:26 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140303185223.GE5406@mx1.yitter.info>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:00:23 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8FC1D512-79BB-49DD-AE89-A88C7F1F73C6@gmail.com>
References: <20140303105138.GA3875@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <53149C57.1040105@redbarn.org> <C9C88C7D-E43E-4687-961F-980A4839F561@virtualized.org> <5314CE01.3030806@redbarn.org> <20140303185223.GE5406@mx1.yitter.info>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/R-iyknYs2sVNSa5WAqp_p2MbWoE
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On some terminology in draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize (truncation)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:00:37 -0000

On Mar 3, 2014, at 1:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> 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