On 27 March 2018 at 17:33, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > i see no purpose in change documents, which would add to the set of things > a new implementer would have to know to read, and then to read.
I think we're discussing the same idea from different perspectives. I think writing a new document that references other documents to say "here's the sections in each of these you need to implement" without actually making any of them clearer is unhelpful, and just adds to the pile of documents that an implementer needs to read. While I recognize there's already been one failed attempt at this, I'd still much prefer we replace as much of that stack as possible with a smaller set of clearer documents. > re: > > Matthew Pounsett wrote: > >> >> >> On 27 March 2018 at 03:49, Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org >> <mailto:ond...@isc.org>> wrote: >> >> >> Again, from experience from dnsext, I would strongly suggest that >> any work in this area is split into CHANGE documents and REWRITE >> documents, with strict scope. Documents rewriting existing RFCs >> while adding more stuff at the same time tend to not reach the >> finish line. >> >> Does this include combining documents? For example, it would probably >> make sense to combine some of the clarifications documents into any >> rewrite of 1034/1035. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >> > > -- > P Vixie > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
