Re: Issues remaining with Bind draft

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> I've re-reviewed the bind draft. Many of these issues have come up 
> before but I feel they haven't been resolved in the draft.
> 
> General
> -----------
> 
> The spec must stand alone, not be dependent on changes to RFC2518 in 
> 'bis'. Otherwise, bind can't be approved until RFC2518bis is approved. 
> That means no dependencies for things like 'lockroot'.

There isn't any.

> In general, the spec needs more info to specify how existing things 
> work. All the following questions must be answered in the spec, NOT just 
> in email. The spec must be explicit, because different people reading a 
> model description always end up with different ideas how the model works 
> in practice.

Here I disagree.

First of all, there are several ways to resolve questions raised:

1) If there is a simple answer based on existing specs and the current 
draft, just answer it here on the mailing list.

2) If the issue is likely to be re-raised (because the answer is not 
obvious), record it (and the answer) on the issues list.

3) If the issue is indeed valid, add it to the issues list and attempt 
to resolve it.

In general, there are areas where the spec *can't* specify how existing 
things work, because they depend on specific implementations. I 
absolutely agree that those situations should be avoided, but sometime 
there's nothing we can do about that.

I'll post answers to the specific issues in a separate mail.

Regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 06:37:38 UTC