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

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Thu, 16 July 2015 11:30 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 D72861B39F7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 04:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 3Z9oRfE6YXhe for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 04:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com (mail-ob0-f178.google.com [209.85.214.178]) (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 C87581B39F5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 04:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obre1 with SMTP id e1so44979298obr.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 04:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=sxu3GE+lu7q4Ni5YcEy+b3abXmGEfF9aI72E8k2OsMg=; b=EnN6EtT8ypwcLjus53kqSipj9sczJvIDa04Rf1N65eiW6RUSU6Wx7KDVi/rF145s3A HrDK4F33SZrjF/nbm1lrbPrxCFYBx86tdee9Ra0lKPdtjaDIWhScdG2WD4dACMco/aLp ahdGduIeHnuoi/sYp0ivd8ucRy9L/IG3AFOZMY1sFwcHrHPz1dYRRuLjY3cSTEhsBCGM EJoHrLG12U3SoHMOgvr1uzuBCZTnTcgAxtFcXg1QTu6tPyQG7wR2BHasp2QGE/7NSk+H AceojsCSJ5I82zoD42gQzWDCv5IqeNqx4OcnB/9fyL3+zOkSnuB9WR6rGegsHE3CH92a O6Iw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlS4JxNlcd5yrBQ1dMQclrbvlnZYtGD0e15523n8vVU5ej9H3TDz9bID399r0+G+yT4uQ9q
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.133.3 with SMTP id oy3mr8547228obb.86.1437046204132; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 04:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.232.1 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 04:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150716091519.47a6bbdd@casual>
References: <CAEKtLiQWPM6yJZZASQ5k1bzsbHc3jv5FRsJ6ifgUdj9TRLCmRg@mail.gmail.com> <83A64168-3510-4E0B-AA23-54547C05990B@vpnc.org> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1507141719130.32296@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <55A543CD.6010008@gmail.com> <CAEKtLiRQVgQRnm51gSb0e9zhmQ7vYVJXdPBQsSLXqHo_hiAKyw@mail.gmail.com> <20150716003359.GD13926@mx2.yitter.info> <20150716091519.47a6bbdd@casual>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 13:30:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iJt-A7xuZ35qdnhPL7x=J15X5fWTHv_hP=DThAPfC2K0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
To: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xwbcvKnBYafCUE9xXpit9tDJ9Dc>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:30:13 -0000

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
> All,
>
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:33:59 -0400
> Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:43:12PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote:
>> > I am also concerned about the apparent urgency to get the initial document
>> > out with points that admittedly remain contentious and/or where there isn't
>> > WG consensus.  I don't think it needs perfection, but it seems unnecessary
>> > to get the document published without further explicitly identifying and
>> > considering the standing issues.  We've haven't had this document
>> > before--I'm not sure what the rush is now.
>>
>> Just on this issue, and speaking only for myself (but as one of the
>> people behind this document), my view is that this WG has historically
>> been one of the places where documents go to die, and I am unwilling
>> to go through the exercise of proving again how great an enemy of the
>> good the perfect can be.  I'd be much more inclined to remove the
>> contentious definitions and publish that document than to try to get
>> things perfect.
>
> I totally agree, on all counts.

+1 on getting it published.

I should point out that the emphasis should be on the "historically"
in "WG has historically been one of the places where documents go to
die".

Recently this working group has been munching though and getting
documents published.

2012: 1 RFC
2013: 1 RFC
2014: 1 RFC
2015: 3 RFC, 4 documents are with the IESG / RFC Ed.

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...

W


>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Shane
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf