On 3/10/2017 5:07 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
Once a document becomes a WG document the authors are required to
incorporate WG consensus.
If this does not / is not happening, the chairs have the option /
responsibility to replace the authors with ones that do...
W
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote:
...
The authors clearly stated the document will describe only what is
currently implemented and they were not willing to make changes.
How can this ever turn into a real WG document?
While of course Warren's caution, above to authors and the wg, is always
valid, I think this misses an important point of confusion in this
thread and in the specified adoption of this draft:
While yes, Vernon said the goal was documenting the current
implementation, so did the wg chair:
On 12/20/2016 7:16 AM, tjw ietf wrote:
The draft is being present as "Informational", and the point here is
to document current working behavior in the DNS (for the past
severalyears).
When existing work is brought into the IETF, there is always a choice
about how the current work should related to the existing effort. For
anything with a significant installed base, it is common -- and
extremely helpful -- to first issue an RFC that details current practice.
The goal of the wg, then, is to ensure that the document is clear and
accurate and useful... in terms of the established practice. Again,
this is an extremely common goal for an initial effort.
It is increasingly common for such existing work to have made
engineering choices that sit poorly with some wg participants. While
there can be some academic satisfaction in debating superior
alternatives, it isn't useful when documenting existing practice.
Or are folks now seeking to have the IETF eschew running code?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
