Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-dname-00

On Dec 7, 2013, at 5:03 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:

> 
> On 2013-12-07, at 11:33, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Alas, this document is definitely not ready for publication as an RFC. It still is very unclear which parts are restatements of RFC 6304, which are changes, and which are speculative. Appendix B makes an attempt to make this clearer, but fails spectacularly by saying that Appendix B should be removed from the final document.
> 
> I agree that it's not quite ready for last call, as it stands right now. I was slightly surprised to see the wg last call start, given that (as mentioned in Vancouver, and in the text you quoted) there was an open question about a successor to 6304.

Yup, this is my fault — I *completely* spaced on the discussions in Vancouver (sadly much of the meeting is a blur).
I did take a quick look through the minutes before asking for WGLC, but they didn’t jog my memory sufficiently. Sorry!

> 
>> I propose that this document be scrapped completely, and that the RFC 6304 successor simply be published with these changes. That new document should have what is Appendix B of this document as a sub-section of its introduction (because the changes are significant), and should retain Appendix A of this document (because it shows due diligence for the changes).
> 
> I could see that working. I could also see this document proceeding, documenting the change in approach, and a separate document being written to update 6304. It would be good to hear the wider working group's opinion on the preferred direction.

Yes please. 

Abashedly,
W

> 
> 
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

--
After you'd known Christine for any length of time, you found yourself fighting a desire to look into her ear to see if you could spot daylight coming the other way.

    -- (Terry Pratchett, Maskerade)