On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 04:55:44PM -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote: > arguments are always well thought out and well stated. The only > argument I have against Ed in this particular discussion is that the > resulting solution will be harmful to him since he can simply "not use > it".
I confess that I haven't been following this discussion as closely as I ought (every time I start to try to read the thread, I feel like the thread gets longer). But in the little I've managed to read, it seemed to me that the points Ed was making were (1) that this is an important additional move on the supposed insignificance of the SEP bit, and that is worrisome and (2) if this mechanism were altered slightly, then it could be more generic and therefore more useful. Those both seem to me to be substantive and important points that ought to give us pause about the existing proposal. If I had a hope of getting through Zeno's mail thread this week, I'd try to read it all and respond. Instead I'm just pointing out that a dismissal along the lines of "just don't use it" seems to ignore at least part of the point of reviewing things in the IETF. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
