[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf
Subject:    Re: Last Call: draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-07.txt
From:       Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton ! us>
Date:       2010-11-23 21:32:15
Message-ID: 4CEC32DF.203 () dougbarton ! us
[Download RAW message or body]

On 11/23/2010 13:17, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 12:55 PM -0800 11/23/10, Doug Barton wrote:
> > In the theoretical perfect world the reason for producing a spec is so that \
> > vendors can _create_ interoperable versions of the service. That motivation \
> > doesn't apply here, so one wonders what the time pressure is.
> 
> That is "a" reason, not "the" reason. Another is so that vendors can assure \
> interoperability of their systems after they are deployed. Saying "you have to \
> figure out how to interoperate with all other implementations" does not lead to \
> that interoperability. A stable RFC can help greatly, as has been shown repeatedly \
> in the IETF.

That's a motivation for creating the draft, yes. It's not a motivation 
for publishing the RFC before it's ready.

Please understand, I'm not saying "don't publish," I'm not even saying 
"fix _all_ the problems." I'm saying, "Fix the obvious, glaring protocol 
error that has potential to do more damage down the road, and while 
you're at it here are some other minor suggestions to improve the 
quality of the document if you choose to accept them. THEN publish the RFC."

And now I've repeated myself sufficiently so I will spare the list 
members any more responses to ad absurdum replies.


Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]