On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > Seconded, just go ahead. > > BTW are we planning to IETF last call this doc and publish as an RFC or is > this internal only? Yes we probably said but I can't keep which docs are > what in where straight. >
The plan was to RFCize it. It was not listed on the charter / milestones because it was unclear then we wrote that if we wanted to do this here or if it would be better in DNSOP. We *could* go back and milestone it, but that sounds like unnecessary administrative faffing. W P.S: Apparently I've decided today is verbification day... > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Feb 27, 2015, at 4:28 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:53:27AM +0000, >> > Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote >> > a message of 55 lines which said: >> > >> >> How's about adding something like: >> >> >> >> 2.6 Re-identification >> > >> > OK for me, thanks for the text. Any advice from the WG? (I don't want >> > to make important changes in the middle of a WGLC if there is no >> > consensus.) >> >> Yep, looks a good addition. >> >> --Paul Hoffman >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dns-privacy mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy > > > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy > -- 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 _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
