Subject: Re: [dnsext] Want this to be a WG doc?

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:31:30 -0500

So far I have comments from three people added to the next version-to-be.

Frankly, there isn't a lot to this document and it's based on 
observations.  I don't see it as being all that interesting or in 
need of much "work" despite the fact that inputs to date have 
improved the document.

The answer I seek now is whether this comes in as a -00 in WG name or 
goes to a -02 version under a personal submission.  (I.e., window 
dressing.)

All in all, the WG has shown a low amount of energy for this (rightly 
so) but when I tried independent submission I was told this is a 
matter for the WG to look at.  The old "catch-22" (see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_22).

The IANA editor has informally expressed support for this as a way to 
clean up dangling references in the DNS parameters page.  This is the 
reason the document has resurfaced.

So, WG or not?  Individual or not?  I just want to get this moving and done.

At 11:17 +0200 3/29/12, Edward Lewis wrote:
>Any thoughts on whether the following would be a DNSEXT document? 
>I'm asking DNSOP too.
>
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-dns-undocumented-types-01

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:56:40 -0700

On Apr 4, 2012, at 8:31 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> So, WG or not?  

WG.

> Individual or not?  

Err.  Not?

> I just want to get this moving and done.

Good work and I'll review.

Regards,
-drc