Hellekin, > Maybe you would like to comment on it, instead of saying those strings are > unrelated.
I could, but my primary reason for not being particularly interested in your draft is because, as I've said repeatedly, I believe the 6 different strings should be grouped into 4 different drafts, each focused on the logical functional grouping of the protocols (i.e., ONION/EXIT, GNU/ZKEY, I2P, and BIT). I believe different arguments can be made for whether or not each of those four should be progressed and bunching them together means progress is constrained by the group that has the least support. I personally think ONION/EXIT is a reasonably easy case to make, hence I'm supportive of draft-appelbaum. Since I don't know that much about the other 3 groupings, I'm not that supportive of the draft as a whole -- this isn't to say I'm against, just that I don't know enough to comment positively. You might also gather from the lack of interest in the rest of the working group that others may be making a similar calculation (or not, I've no idea -- it might also be your style of interaction on the mailing list). Just my opinion, ignore if you like. Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
