On 16 Sep 2015, at 11:21, Alvaro Retana wrote:
This is a very nice, and needed reference.
However, I don’t understand why it is being published.
Because it is very nice and needed. :-)
As others have
pointed out, the Introduction reads:
Therefore, the authors intend to follow this document with a
substantial revision in the not-distant future. That revision will
probably have more in-depth discussion of some terms as well as new
terms; it will also update some of the RFCs with new definitions.
If a revision is coming soon, why not wait?
The WG will probably *start* the work soon, but it is expected to be
contentious and drawn-out. Some developers believe that the original
definitions should still be used (even in the face of obvious problems)
and other developers believe they should be updated (even in the face of
likely interoperability issues). However, there was general agreement
that trying harder and updating the original RFCs might be valuable.
What does an RFC number give
the authors/WG that the ongoing maintenance of an ID doesn’t?
People said they wanted this for a few reasons. The ability to
normatively reference the agreed-to definitions that are yet to appear
in any RFC seemed important to some document authors. Also, this was a
way to announce to the DNS-using parts of the IETF community about which
definitions are solid and which are not.
Personally, I cringe at seeing RFCs that reference an Internet Draft
about definitions, since those definitions might change after the RFC is
published.
The
statement above just reads as if the work is not complete.
We wanted to (humbly?) acknowledge that this work is indeed not
complete, and hope that no one would be surprised when the next RFC is
published.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
