Hi Victor,
At 19:02 17-04-2013, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
I am trying to be flexible in how this is resolved, but surely
Andrew's response is wrong. I will resist what little temptation
exists to explain it again, by now the thread contains more than
enough ways of explaining the same thing. Even Paul has agreed
that my observation is basically sound (and does not change the
standard), the only question that remains is what is the most
effective way to communicate this to server operators so that the
standard will work in practice.
The corrected text may be valuable but in my opinion it is, as Andrew
Sullivan mentioned, a substantive change. This is grounds for
rejecting erratum #3594.
If the standard does not work in practice it means that RFC 6698 is
defective. That's a different issue. There are different schools of
thought about how a RFC should be written and how things should be
done in the IETF.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
