On 5/21/15 2:08 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 06:03:32AM +0000, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:44:54AM +0200, nudge wrote:
I've slightly reworded your text for clarity:
Thanks, with guidance from the chairs, I'll merge as much as I can.
Inspired by the proposed improvement, the below takes a stab at
further clarity and elimination of redundancy. I realize it is
late in the process, so guidace on whether/when/how to improve
this section would be helpful. New section 9 text below the
"signature" line.
With Section 9 ideally no longer under a cloud of uncertainty,
we would also update section 12:
We have heard nothing from the working group saying that they are
unhappy with the new section 9, and it seems clear.
OLD:
<t> In <xref target="agility"/>, we propose a digest algorithm
agility protocol. [Note: This section does not yet represent
the rough consensus of the DANE working group and requires further
discussion. Perhaps this belongs in a separate document.] </t>
NEW:
<t> In <xref target="agility"/>, we specify a digest algorithm
agility protocol. </t>
The Working Group reviewed this document, and we called consensus on
it (and then waited a bit to see if anyone came out of the woodwork,
looking sad), and so I believe that this *does* have WG consensus, and
so the [Note:...] can be removed.
Although I wouldn't call this a "protocol" since it describes desirable
client behavior and not an over-the-wire negotiation, the proposed text
seems fine to me.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
