Subject: [DNSOP] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:21:05 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a very nice, and needed reference.

However, I don’t understand why it is being published.  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?  What does an RFC number give
the authors/WG that the ongoing maintenance of an ID doesn’t?  The
statement above just reads as if the work is not complete.

This point has been made by others, so I won’t stand in the way of
publication.

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:25:09 -0700

On 16 Sep 2015, at 11:21, Alvaro Retana wrote:

> However, I don’t understand why it is being published.

Because it is very nice and needed. :-)

> As others have
> 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

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