> Im going to extend this LC to Wednesday and suggest that, if we dont get
> consensus on this we simply stick with what is in the current
> (draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms-02) document. ...
> Any (strong) objections?
Yes, I object. If there is no consensus on acronyms, we should stick
with what is in the current RFC 6698, rather than forwarding an
acronym proposal for adoption as a standard, even though we can't
agree on what it should say. It's unnecessary, which probably
explains the paucity of responses, and divisive among those who did
respond. It should be abandoned.
John
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
