Re: "ok" status on domains (and other objects)

[Michael Graff <Michael_Graff@isc.org>]

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> writes:

> We need to understand something: the protocol documents have almost
> completed IESG review.  I don't have a lot of liberty in making changes to
> documents that have completed both WG and IETF-wide last calls (other than
> dealing with editorial issues) unless _serious_ issues are discovered.  In
> my mind, _serious_ means that a large number of WG participants agree that
> something needs to be changed _now_ and the chairs declare that we have
> consensus on the need for such a change.

I'd argue that the ROID stuff is a serious issue, BTW.  :)  Making the ok
and inactive states "automatic" doesn't seem like a huge issue, nor does
it seem to be different than what the draft expects.

> The answer to your first question is "yes".  I will _try_ to deal with
> wordsmithing the text to more fully explain that the default "ok" status is
> set and unset as a result of other explicit status-setting operations.  I'm
> not open to the idea of changing status behavior unless we enter into the
> _serious_ issue state as described above.

I sort of assumed the wordsmithing route would happen.

--Michael