Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Adopting draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem as the problem statement for special-use domain names (6761bis)

From: Matthew Pounsett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:52:09 -0400

On 28 June 2016 at 20:37, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 28 Jun 2016, at 16:54, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> Unfortunately the updates to adpkja do not address the serious problems in
>> the document that led to me writing a replacement.
>>
>
> Could you list those? In Buenos Aires, the major problem was "lack of
> focus" and "organization", and it feels like both of those have been well
> addressed in the past few drafts since the meeting.
>
> Warren and I are working
>> on an update to the tldr document.
>>
>
> Good, but should that prevent the WG from adopting
> draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem? If so, why?

Forgive my ignorance of the process, but wouldn't adopting
draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem as "*the* problem statement" (my
stress) preclude adopting the tldr document?

>
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 15:00:33 -0700

> stress) preclude adopting the tldr document?

That was my intention, yes. The authors of the "tldr" draft seemed to 
have abandoned it while the authors of special-names-problem were 
actively maintaining and (in my opinion) improving theirs. After I 
started this thread, the "tldr" folks came out with a new version of 
their draft and asked the WG to consider it as well.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:21:12 -0400

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> That was my intention, yes. The authors of the "tldr" draft seemed to have
> abandoned it while the authors of special-names-problem were actively
> maintaining and (in my opinion) improving theirs. After I started this
> thread, the "tldr" folks came out with a new version of their draft and
> asked the WG to consider it as well.

Actually, the tldr authors hadn't hadn't abandoned it  - they / we
were simply waiting to post a new version so that I could chat with
the authors of draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem to let them
know that I would be co-authoring tldr. I chatted with Alain on 6/22
and then Peter Koch on 6/26 when I arrived in Helsinki for the ICANN
meeting.

Ted and I discussed how to improve the tldr document in early June,
and then posted an intermediate version to github on June 17th -
https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/commits/master .

Anyway, the dates are not important; I want to clarify that the tldr
document had not been abandoned, nor was only being updated in
response to the other document.

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf