IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Tue, 03 December 2019 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D1B1200FD; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 10:28:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 BaYVUBVpm8lo; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 10:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (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 31F7F1200EC; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 10:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 200116b824a7d500b41578c7b19a2328.dip.versatel-1u1.de ([2001:16b8:24a7:d500:b415:78c7:b19a:2328]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1icCug-0000Ll-DC; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 19:28:42 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <24037.37711.610534.987269@gro.dd.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 19:28:41 +0100
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <10A2FD64-FEF9-4747-B801-D4C5C4E2F94B@kuehlewind.net>
References: <157530400244.4096.7440148624032232624.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <24037.37711.610534.987269@gro.dd.org>
To: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1575397725;82a189ac;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1icCug-0000Ll-DC
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/iQ23uFsCIU3KNteWe3WAFuhDP7g>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 03 Dec 2019 18:28:47 -0000

Hi Dave,

Just on this point:

> On 2. Dec 2019, at 23:42, Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> wrote:
> 
>> 2) I find the Implementation Status section (8) actually quite
>> interesting for this document and maybe it should be considered to
>> keep it in the document for final publication.
> 
> I personally am in favor of this, not just for this document but for
> all RFCs.   RFC 6982 recommends that the section be removed, but I'd
> be happy to help evolve that recommendation.

RFC6982 recommends this because usually it's more important to have this information during the life-time of a draft (to understand the maturity of the protocol) but then it might quickly get out-dated after publication. However, we had also drafts were we retained the section for final publication because e.g. the whole draft was based on one specific implementation. I think that is also the case here and there is nothing in RFC6982 that permits keeping this information in the draft (if it seen as still useful in future).

Mirja

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email