Re: [Gendispatch] First comments on draft-rsalz-2028bis-00.txt

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

As I wrote earlier, I support this draft going forward, and I think the 
best way is AD-sponsored.

The one aspect of this that I mentioned to Rich and Lars was that I 
think we should look at whether this document should be looked at 
normatively or whether it is meant as an informational document.  That 
is– should the process of updating this document update documents other 
than obsoleting 2028?  I would very much like the answer to that 
question to be NO.

We have to be sure that we're not doing that by accident, and one way to 
do that is to make this document Informational.  Another way to do that 
is to say that explicitly we are not updating any other documents, and 
when in doubt, go to those other documents. A third way of doing that is 
to go read that long list of documents to make sure we are not creating 
ambiguities.

Eliot

On 08.09.21 22:59, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 09-Sep-21 08:42, Rob Sayre wrote:
> ...
>> By writing it all down, Rich seems to have shown that some of these relationships are absurdly complex. I'm not saying that was the intent. Sometimes these things only become evident after you try to document them.
> They are complex as a result of history, but trying to straighten out a plate of spaghetti is generally held to be impossible. We have a plate of our own spaghetti to sort out first: https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/informal/
>
>     Brian
>