Re: draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt

[John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>]

--On Tuesday, 20 May, 2003 15:37 -0700 Bob Braden 
<braden@ISI.EDU> wrote:

> John,
>
> We are very grateful for the work you put into reading and
> commenting on the document.
After the extensive work you did on "dns-role", and the whining 
I have done about other aspects of this, I felt I owed it to 
you.  I appreciate the careful consideration you have obviously 
given to my remarks.

A number of your comments touch on areas where either my 
request/ intent or my objection was unclear.  I apologize for 
any lack of clarity.  I am in the middle of several other things 
right now and will not be able to clarify those points 
immediately, but will try to get comments back to you not later 
than the end of the weekend.

One observation that might help clarify several of those 
remarks, or at least provide context for them.   From my 
perspective, the timing of this document is unfortunate.  On the 
one hand, from the standpoint of a potential RFC author, it is 
overdue.  On the other, it intersects issues about IETF and IESG 
procedures that are under active discussion in conjunction with 
the problem-statement WG and the proposed IESG Charter and it 
would be easier to construct this document if the issues being 
raised in those other venues were nailed down.   Neither the 
issues, nor the timing, are the RFC Editor's fault, but it makes 
things less convenient.

More soon.
Best regards,
    john