On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, Salz, Rich wrote:
[ speaking as individual only ]
On the other hand, spending a week or two repeating a cycle to get an important
term in the current document seems like a better solution.
If the WG agrees that this is an important term, sure.
Well, if the IETF has co
> I would say that if the WG didn't think it was important at the time by
forgetting it, it probably is not an "important term", and I can see
this not being fixed in an IETF LC anymore as an acceptable outcome.
Sure, if I'm in the rough that's fine.
__
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:33 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> [ speaking as individual only ]
>
> On the other hand, spending a week or two repeating a cycle to get an
> important term in the current document seems like a better solution.
>
> If the WG agrees t
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:34 AM Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> [ speaking as individual only ]
>
> >>> On the other hand, spending a week or two repeating a cycle to get an
> important term in the current document seems like a better solution.
> >
> >> If the WG
I also want to note that rfc8499bis contains the same "Domain Name"
definition which was objected to by multiple IESG members.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-integrations/ballot/
(in RFC-editor Q, on missref)
So, if you didn't like that definition before, then probably you shoul
Michael Richardson wrote:
> definition which was objected to by multiple IESG members.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-integrations/ballot/
> (in RFC-editor Q, on missref)
> So, if you didn't like that definition before, then probably you should
> object to
