Hi, 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 agree and acknowledge that there remain some definitions in there that are contentious. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
