Dear draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis authors,
I've just kicked off IETF FC for this document - while performing my
AD review, I kept wondering "Why a -bis, what changed?", and then I
discovered "10.1. Issue Fixed in this Document", and I suddenly
remembered / understood. When you next revise the document (in
response to IETF LC comments, or when I send it to IESG eval) I think
it would be a grand idea to include a point in the Abstract suggesting
the readers look at this section to understand the motivations, etc.
Thank you for a useful, and easily read document,
W
On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 11:01 AM Benno Overeinder via Datatracker
wrote:
>
> Benno Overeinder has requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-06
> as Internet Standard on behalf of the DNSOP working group.
>
> Please verify the document's state at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis/
>
--
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
