On 5 Nov 2015, at 2:20, Donald Eastlake wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote:
I couldn't quite interpret the questions and hums in the room; was
the
consensus
(a) this clarification is not needed; the existing spec is clear
enough, or
(b) a clarification might be useful, but the proposed clarification
in the
document is wrong, or
(c) something else?
If it's (b), I could collect more of the kinds of insights that were
provided at the mic and update the proposal.
If it's (a), I can happily just shut up about and move on with other
things
:-)
I believe that in theory the result of the hum was (a) but it may be
that many people thought (b)...
I shall wait instruction from the chairs as to their opinion.
In case it wasn't clear from Andrew's slides and discussion, the reason
for asking for adoption was to harvest the combined experience of the
working group in order to make the proposal make sense, not to push a
particular solution.
Joe
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
