Paul, draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem document is not a working group document. The working group can adopt it or not as the working group chooses. The same is true of the document I have offered.
So to answer a slightly different question than the one you asked, what I am proposing is that the working group adopt the tldr document, likely with changes, rather than adopting the adpkja document, which I think would take much more work to get into shape. The entire reason that I started the tldr document is that I felt that the adpkja document not only didn't accurately describe the problem, but contained much more text describing some authors' beliefs about what the solutions should be than text describing what the problem is. I also felt that the scope of the adpkja document was too narrow--it mostly talks about problems with 6761, without really talking about the greater context of those problems. On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote: > On 5 Apr 2016, at 16:35, Ted Lemon wrote: > > I wrote about six pages of comments on the recently-submitted special-use >> TLD problem statement document. However, ultimately I concluded that it >> would be easier to just write what I thought the problem statement should >> look like rather than try to suggest (and then no doubt discuss one by one) >> a large set of changes that I think it needs. >> >> So this weekend I spent quite a bit of time talking to various people who >> I knew would have insight into the question, and the result is the draft I >> just submitted. Ralph Droms was instrumental in inspiring me to write the >> document, and helped me out by doing an initial review. >> >> I've included the submission announcement below. I realize that this is >> a woefully late submission for discussion at IETF 95, since I mostly wrote >> it yesterday, _at_ IETF 95. However, I think it may serve as a better >> starting point for the discussion than the current problem statement draft, >> so if you have time to read it, I would genuinely appreciate it if you >> could give it a look. >> > > Clarifying question: are you formally requesting the WG to stop work on > draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem and switch to this one? If not, > what do think we should do about the two? > > --Paul Hoffman > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
