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

On 7/16/15 6:44 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Warren Kumari wrote:
>>> We shouldn't be figuring out how useful a WG is by the number of
>>> documents published, but I don't think DNSOP is still where documents
>>> go to die...
>>
>> Agreed, but I also don't want to return to that bleak past where we
>> could never get anything published because it wasn't perfect, and then
>> the number of recycles got high enough that nobody would review, so
>> the draft wasn't perfect, and so on.

good enough is a substantiallly different  bar then good.

If there are things that folks really cannot live with I think that's
really what I want to know about.

> +very many much lots.
> 
> I just wanted to acknowledge the fact that our chairs are now getting
> documents pushed through....
>
> W
> 
>> The editors will put their heads
>> together once more on the basis of the most recent comments.
>>
>> A
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 
> 
> 

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

Attachment: signature.asc