-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 06/22/2015 04:21 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > While I understand why you feel 2.6 should contain information about > user's privacy, it currently seems to meet the requirements for > [RFC6761]. > *** I consider important that readers keep the primary motivation why such reservations are made in the first place. Even if it's technically sufficient to match the requirements of RFC6761, readers years from now might not remember how important privacy still was in our time if we don't make it explicit.
== hk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJViKtrXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0 ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg9u4gP/i5EMKWth68+zoOW+lI7Oimg mbkNqfJy7vxXvI3CpIrKvfH/dS7HtQEwz2IXWltjUqf5ahsnxBBMlk2wHw5Gi8EK F1El9KkUK29A7467ZkfwbFxa7uzCIozxGlFafDZr9lzWZjMoynx7R9Lao9wq0h7I RqluhOv9pm7Mop15u/3oWWqL/SIysQgWHvrVeZ4AsFwx6LKN7kU/KLj1REQOQeq+ vFsW8otJ2A0k3chw7Y37FX5OLk3a2RrfLCVoRQ7ECLDtyQi7VwpaxlCupV9bJ3lZ aIUKTzmdx+TPv1r899j9aag01yo1YLtMwzkccFUZmUTD4vkbYB5vmgjbB0WYx/1E RcoXd5t6vOJC0bEOFtxP7180A4MLqPr7mQ98zYOFstrON6SATNcgkmbTyrM41kND 8rppB2ixlm9AdPLOop7kSO/9pisZQytDJCZ4M9+/OZ3ER2JaZN/jfYj/iBSqfsuM FXpYaPSkUMFdUokvS7fSXwDUhtzXQ4rBimtveu9giATTLtaNzX+PgfE/kTr1u/ch a/QAInDWQi9v1nB0smaKmhjNt3WdJAMsHgjbMge/+jLIvHwV1qcIqsBSqLIvw4v8 1wT7TiSsSMlRJH0PxzBqtWsIzfkNjW9Wr8O+LqVQa4RZRle0LPt28qQLOxKQHBZY M4eXTDaS7moKdkdI4pWW =4z9Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
