On Sep 4, 2012, at 09:07, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Greetings again. As those of you who were at the IETF meeting in Vancouver > (or those who read the minutes at > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-dane) know, Jakob and I > are unsure about how the WG might want our draft to look. The current version > of the draft expires in a few days, so we have an opportunity to make major > changes now. > > From our presentation: > What should be in the doc? > 1. Copy whole DANE-for-TLS RFC and make needed changes > 2. Copy structure of DANE-for-TLS RFC and point to it but don’t copy much > 3. Say “we assume you read and understood DANE-for-TLS, and here are the > relevant differences” > > If the WG can come to rough consensus in the next few days, we'll try to get > the changes in before the doc expires; otherwise, we'll do an uninteresting > bump draft and make the content changes later.
I would prefer (3), but would accept consensus around (2). - m&m Matt Miller - <[email protected]> Cisco Systems, Inc.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
