Matthew Pounsett wrote:
On 27 March 2018 at 17:33, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org <mailto: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 so, yes.
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.
that's not what i heard bert propose, and it's not what i'm thinking. where an older document is not clear, its intent should be restated in modern language with modern understanding. where an older document is clear, we can refer back to it. if the balance ever tips, then some future generation of protocol developers can obsolete older documents in their entirety, because the useful parts have all been restated or cut and pasted.
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.
this is what i want. we should aim for a living RFC that's reissued from time to time as the mandatory-to-implement subset inevitably grows. i have no appetite for obsoleting 1035, but i do want a new implementer to be referring to it as directed by a more modern document, rather than reading it and wondering what parts are still in effect.
-- P Vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
