All, Your co-chair is a little confused.
On Oct 4, 2015, at 2:00 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > I've since been told that the draft doesn't actually document current > practice (don't know the details), so this probably needs to be fixed. What "needs to be fixed"? That the draft doesn't document current practice? Given that's the stated goal, I'd appreciate clarification from the authors on what they think needs to be done before it meets that goal, and whether they're willing to work on it. > >> Well, as a technicality, I don't see that this draft was ever adopted by the >> WG. > > Perhaps that might be a good next step? Might be. I was attempting to suggest a shorter path to publication might be possible, given the extensive record of discussion on the document over several years-- we've been known to do a combined adoption/WGLC on a document not expected to need much work in the WG. But judging by your comment above, it's hard to say how much work remains to be done on it, since we've also got folks eager to preempt WGLC altogether. Authors? thanks, Suzanne _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
