Subject: [DNSOP] Moving forward with DNS Stateful Operations

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 11:32:07 -0400

We got some really good review during the IESG last call process.   Thanks
to the IESG members (bcc) who read the document thoroughly and gave so many
thoughtful comments.

I believe that we have addressed all of the comments that were made during
the review adequately.  However, this hasn't been thoroughly reviewed; we
should do a thorough review of these changes.   In order to facilitate
that, I've submitted a -14 (on top of last night's -13), so the diffs to
look at are between -12 and -14, not, e.g., just -13 and -14.   You can get
the diffs here:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-14&url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12

Note that because I added an applicability section, all of the IESG
comments about sections after 4 are off by one.

 The one remaining nit is that at least two and possibly three of the ADs
commented that the terminology section has a lot of normative language in
it and generally talks a lot about things that are really specification,
not terminology.

I responded to this by saying that we'd discussed this as a group, agreed
it wasn't great, and decided it was more work to fix than it was worth.
 However, at the moment I actually have a lot of state on this document in
my head, and I think I could fix this without it being too much work or
introducing errors.   But doing so would impose extra workload at least on
the authors, and maybe on the working group, to review the changes I make
and make sure I don't screw something up.

Is there appetite for doing this?   I think it would significantly improve
the document, but I am mindful of the expense.

---

From: Tom Pusateri <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 11:43:06 -0400

> On Aug 2, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> We got some really good review during the IESG last call process.   Thanks to the IESG members (bcc) who read the document thoroughly and gave so many thoughtful comments.
> 
> I believe that we have addressed all of the comments that were made during the review adequately.  However, this hasn't been thoroughly reviewed; we should do a thorough review of these changes.   In order to facilitate that, I've submitted a -14 (on top of last night's -13), so the diffs to look at are between -12 and -14, not, e.g., just -13 and -14.   You can get the diffs here: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-14&url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12 <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-14&url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12>
> 
> Note that because I added an applicability section, all of the IESG comments about sections after 4 are off by one.
> 
>  The one remaining nit is that at least two and possibly three of the ADs commented that the terminology section has a lot of normative language in it and generally talks a lot about things that are really specification, not terminology.
> 
> I responded to this by saying that we'd discussed this as a group, agreed it wasn't great, and decided it was more work to fix than it was worth.   However, at the moment I actually have a lot of state on this document in my head, and I think I could fix this without it being too much work or introducing errors.   But doing so would impose extra workload at least on the authors, and maybe on the working group, to review the changes I make and make sure I don't screw something up.
> 
> Is there appetite for doing this?   I think it would significantly improve the document, but I am mindful of the expense.

I could go either way on this. I don’t mind doing another review if others think this is worthwhile but I also don’t think it’s a problem as is.

Tom

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 11:45:23 -0400

I think it would probably shorten the document by a page, and make it
marginally easier to read, but I tend to agree that best is the enemy of
good enough here.

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Tom Pusateri <[email-masked]> wrote:

> the diffs here: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-
> session-signal-14&url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-12
>
> I could go either way on this. I don’t mind doing another review if others
> think this is worthwhile but I also don’t think it’s a problem as is.
>
> Tom
>

---

From: Ray Bellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 16:59:19 +0100

On 02/08/2018 16:32, Ted Lemon wrote:

> Is there appetite for doing this?   I think it would significantly
> improve the document, but I am mindful of the expense.

I'm generally in favour of anything that makes a document shorter and
easier to read.

Ray

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 13:00:54 -0400

Okay, I just talked this over with Stuart.  He thinks it's worth doing.   I
think we have a quorum on this, so I'm going to take a stab at it today.
 If you (plural) are thinking of reading the document, please hold off
until this evening (U.S. time).