Wes Hardaker <wjh...@hardakers.net> writes:

> I believe we must allow for this possibility in the 4 columns even
> when we may wish it won't be used.
Following myself, because I forgot my ending opinion:

1. I think that the current 8624bis document should not be combined with
the phasing document, for the reasons I laid out.  I believe the 8624bis
document is functionally "done" and should be published.

2. I think the WG should consider adopting the phasing document, and
that document should make use of the columns from 8624bis (it already
does this).  Thus, 8624bis is a base for the phasing document.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org

Reply via email to