Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303-00

Ummm....I'm not sure that adding "could be in neither registry, but reserved anyway" to the things people have to know to implement this properly is the most pragmatic approach, since we've already discovered that "could be in either, check both" is the advice we have to give if we're not integrating the registries.

Agreed on pragmatism, and I can therefore live with deferring the cleanup, but "update either or both" strikes me as moreso than "update neither".

However, I also agree this isn't worth a lot more haggling, and won't object to publication.

Suzanne 

On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:28, Paul Ebersman <list-dnsop@dragon.net> wrote:

> 
> jabley> I would prefer the pragmatic option 5:
> 
> jabley> 5. Leave both registries as-is, publish Mark's document as-is,
> jabley>    and work on a separate registry clean-up draft later, since I
> jabley>    am guessing that work will not be uncontentious and the
> jabley>    guidance provided by the draft at hand is sufficiently useful
> jabley>    not to stall.
> 
> +1 for pragmatic approach and moving forward.
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop