On 20/12/2016 18:46, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> It is statements like this which show that this WG working on this as an > "Informational RFC" is dishonest and is sure to lead to massive > dissatisfaction with the result. AIUI, the authors *could* just request that it go AD Sponsored via the Independent Submissions stream. Having it here at least ensures that a variety of DNS folks can weigh in on any bits that are unclear to them (albeit without any expectation that the protocol itself would change as a result). The result *should* be a specification that's easier to read and implement. Ray _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
