On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > > Face to face time is rare. It also does not include everyone that's on > the list. So where possible, discussion on the lists is always preferred.
A good bar. A high bar. A high bar, which I don't think the "design team" output can meet because I've checked the archives, to match my memory, and substantive discussion on the qualities of the idea of having a registry are few: there are nits on the words of the revision, but we've yet to actually broach "do we want to do this" in any real form. So consider the door open on that discussion: Folks: Do we *really* want to do this? Do we really *want* to revise RFC6761? Can we talk about this a bit? Me? I don't want to do this. I want a process that is so rarely invoked, you have to be a lot taller to get on the ride, than at present. I want a substantive IETF-wide technically understood reason that is breaking architecture, avoiding URI methods, requiring code, that we all understand. And certainly not "because a lot of users now depend on it, because we squatted" -G
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
