Okey dokey, everyone! I will be attempting to re-add, and better explain the "positive" answers bit. I really appreciate all of the feedback which we have received - I'm juggling a few plates at the moment, and so am somewhat distracted, but I'll try integrate them fully and in order.
This will likely require some assistance / patience from the WG to make sure that I've worded things cleanly / clearly. W On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 10/6/16 3:58 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 01:47:28PM -0400, >> John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote >> a message of 34 lines which said: >> >>> It still seems to me that the time to add the wildcards back in >>> would be less than the time to do two separate documents. Unless >>> there's some reason that this needs to be published in a hurry, >> >> >> Not for me, I'm fine with a delay (there have been many important >> changes between -02 and -03, during the WGLC, so, some time to digest >> and study them may be worth it). >> > > I agree. There is no need to hurry this along. I'd rather get this right. > > tim > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
