Thanks Warren for chasing all this process. Tim
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:54 PM Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:39, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > Instead of just having all of these document stuck indefinitely, I'm > proposing that we: > 1: Ask the RFC Editor to return the document to the IESG & IETF[1]. > 2: I return it to the WG. > 3: The authors remove the bits that rely on ESNI > 4: The document progresses "normally" - it gets another WGLC, IETF LC, > IESG Eval, etc. Hopefully this can be expedited - it's already gone though > all of these steps once, and the updated document would be very similar to > the original. > > 5: If / when tls-esni is published, the svcb-https authors submit a -bis > (while will likely just be 'git checkout <current_version>'), and we > progress this just like any other WG document. > > I've discussed this with the authors of the documents, the DNSOP and TLS > chairs, the relevant ADs and the full IESG. > > However, before doing all this, I'd like to confirm that the WG doesn't > object to the plan…. > > > This sounds like a good plan to me. > > > Joe > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
