Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 14 July 2015 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@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 84FFB1ACC86 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
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 D5zh--1PQ9Rk for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x230.google.com (mail-qk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E03B31A8A6B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qkcl188 with SMTP id l188so10908942qkc.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tBh6+tSWdrDjXUemlj+leOre7AmXOAVIo4qfZE/dVjA=; b=XbcbDt3ggcvJiM/1JU1EUl7M3SuNGZxQzBm0fgxrQvSDhe7hUV4IDvjqcF8jNWdnLY J7f/HTQBh5g8pFCITkemhByn8wkeTLzWpkeQOviDo3iqwjK60lH5f4ZQWNUW1iGqWFGe gJgA25wAsLDd27OtVxOqhFrwMUkbAAMb3b0MET/fLjn+XWrNyfi5DmOBGr88hiLjV7ZV +YnF4mR6YKaninCZEot0BmuRRlufYNuIw8YWdkdkXJTki4DvQBl9qpAZQs3mdqUq1sw1 lI/5hoDpI/bJopFvb/obAGe4ME3P8gGQKPLcSDpsy+ZnWiTFNO8JHMxsRmrOT7MxuWUc I7nw==
X-Received: by 10.140.16.74 with SMTP id 68mr48094867qga.99.1436894159175; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from still.local (184-19-93-177.drr03.clbg.wv.frontiernet.net. [184.19.93.177]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 76sm753076qhg.49.2015.07.14.10.15.57 for <dnsop@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CAEKtLiQWPM6yJZZASQ5k1bzsbHc3jv5FRsJ6ifgUdj9TRLCmRg@mail.gmail.com> <83A64168-3510-4E0B-AA23-54547C05990B@vpnc.org> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1507141719130.32296@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55A543CD.6010008@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:15:57 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:41.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/41.0a2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1507141719130.32296@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ZpXveIDJCUpvnb5pf0wbi_iN090>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:16:01 -0000

On 7/14/15 12:26 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>>
>> This is still contentious, and I think it really should be deferred to the
>> -bis document for longer discussion and hopefully consensus.
>
> As far as I can tell from the last few months there is a fairly clear
> consensus that the current draft is not good enough. Brushing off
> suggestions by saying that we'll publish a turkey then fix it up later is
> not a good way to encourage people to contribute.
>
> Tony.
>


Tony

I would have to disagree with you on the consensus.  There was many 
comments on the draft, and the authors did an admirable job addressing 
them and attempting to find common ground.

The decision was made to first document all existing terminology in one 
place, regardless of how accurate it is to the world today; and then 
take time to generate a revised document where many definitions would be 
updated, and other documents partially obsoleted.  But I would not call 
it a turkey.

tim