I agree - further discussions of CGA-TSIG / CGA-TSIGe do not seem to be a good use of WG time.
Thank you Hosneih, but we will not be further discussing this document. I also did not see support for giving it meeting time. W On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Hosnieh Rafiee <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I agree that the first versions might be confusing. >> >> I have looked at the current draft and it is still just as confusing to >> me. I do not feel that it is a good use of our time to cycle on this draft >> just to get it to be understandable to typical readers. I'm happy to read >> the Introduction section of further revisions and, if one eventually is >> clear, to comment then. >> >> --Paul Hoffman >> _______________________________________________ >> dns-privacy mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy > > > > I agree. I don't see that this is helping us understand the problem or the > solution options. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
