Re: [DNSOP] Role of informational RFCs Re: DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

On 21 Dec 2016, at 7:04, Suzanne Woolf wrote:

> Just for clarity— no one is proposing standards track for this 
> document; the intended status has been consistently discussed as 
> “Informational”.

That "consistently" doesn't seem to apply to many people who have said 
+1 to the adoption of this document.

A different document, one that helps implementers who want to do the 
same thing as the others but that has no encouraging rationale and that 
acknowledges that there will likely be later work on the same topic, 
would be a much better starting place for this work. A document that has 
just sections 2 through 5 of this document with the barest of 
introductions, would be a much better starting point for this WG.

--Paul Hoffman