Hi, This is a good time to remind ourselves of how we got here.
This draft came into the WG as an individual submission, with the authors seeking comment but not asking for it to be a WG work item. We eventually adopted it in the expectation that handling it as a WG draft would lead to higher quality review and higher credibility for the resulting document. There has seemed consistently to be very strong support that this document is needed. The chairs were in full understanding of the editors' views on the purpose of the document, and thought the WG was too: the intention was to get a good reference out in the field where people who aren’t necessarily as sophisticated as DNSOP regulars can use it, and then tackle the more difficult issues— where definitions aren’t fully consistent within the standard, or implementers and operators have diverged from the standard, or the standard is silent on some important aspect of the protocol. At this stage, I don’t think it’s a good use of the WG’s time to revisit the basis for adopting the draft. Nor do I think we’re going to resolve all possible contentions, no matter how much more time or how many more review cycles we insist on. Some will be noted as part of this document; some will be removed to wait for the next one. Not speaking for the editors, it does seem to me that it would be helpful for reviews to separate critiques of the form “I don’t think this accurately captures the definition of this term in existing documents” or “I think documentation and implementation/practice have diverged” from critiques of the form “I don’t like this definition or this aspect of the protocol.” We have been through extensive review and a Working Group Last Call on this draft. The next revision should go ahead to the IESG. best, Suzanne > On Jul 16, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@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. The editors will put their heads > together once more on the basis of the most recent comments. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
