Hi, > We have not yet seen that there is WG consensus to accommodate Martin's > point. Can the chairs handle > that? If there is consensus, then the wording needs to be discussed and the > WGLC should be re-started.
The chairs think that the rough consensus is to limit the scope of the draft to domain names (with the pointer to the HTTP RFC as advise for protocols that support IP addresses). We also understand Martin's position that need for handle the non-domain names (like IP-ID) must be addressed somewhere, but we think it could be done in another document (e.g. in 6125-bis-bis). Regards, Leif & Valery. P.S. The WGLC period is over, but I think we can wait till Monday for possible late-coming comments before announcing that the WGLC is ended. _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
