<WG Secretary hat on> On May 7, 2015, at 9:47 AM, hellekin <helle...@gnu.org> wrote:
> I am definitely concerned with the fact that the P2PNames draft is not > mentioned in [0] while draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-01 was adopted by > the WG, without any consideration for previous work, especially, as I > mentioned before, with the existing incompatibilities between the two > drafts. > > [0]: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/documents/ This is an unfortunate misinterpretation of the display of that web page. Literally *none* of the drafts listed under "Related Internet-Drafts" are adopted by the WG. The listing in that section are really things that are considered "related to" the WG. There are two broad criteria for "related to": - The filename for the draft contains the WG name between dashes - One of the WG chairs has figured out how to add a draft to the list Your draft didn't fall into either category, yet. That does not mean your draft isn't related to the WG, since your draft is clearly related by the fact it is on the agenda for an upcoming WG meeting, namely the virtual interim next week. --Paul Hoffman
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
