John Gilmore <[email protected]> writes: >> That is a horrible abuse of the RFC publication process. > ... > I am *asking* for review by the DANE WG.
Another option: put a note about it in the dane-ops draft, which was discussed at the last WG meeting as potentially being more than an -ops document in the first place (extending DANE not just defining operational characteristics). We're over due for getting that out the door too. -- Wes Hardaker Parsons _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
