Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 10/9/18 2:21 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 2:45 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> This is based on an assumption that document authors who add 
>> enumservices are more likely to notice the need [1] to add their 
>> service name to two tables than the IANA are. Given the respective 
>> levels of rigor, that seems like a losing bet.
>
>
> There is certainly a substantive discussion to have about this, since 
> the working group did.
>
> But I'll suggest something simple, in the hope that it actually 
> simplifies things in process terms:
>
>      This issue was discussed at some length within the working group,
>      including disagreements of the sort you raise now. Eventually the
>      working group finally settled on the choices made in the draft.


That's a fair point. I still believe that this arrangement makes the 
situation as it pertains to URL RRs worse rather than better, but I'm 
willing to call myself in the rough here. If another AD sees fit to 
DISCUSS this issue, I will support them. But I'll clear my own discuss 
now, as it seems that we've reached a difference of opinions regarding 
harm rather than demonstrable harm.

/a