On Apr 22, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2013, at 8:12 AM, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 08:00:22AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> >>> On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Ond?ej Sur? <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> a) do nothing >>>> b) accept errata as is >>>> c) start work on RFC6698bis and include this change >>> >>> (c) seems good, and Viktor has already said that he is willing to start on >>> it. >> >> Sure, but I started work on an "operational guidance" I.-D. If we're >> updating 6698, the content would be quite different. Which is the immediate >> priority? A 6698 update or an operational guidance draft? > > My thought is to create the operational guidance draft first and then see > whether the WG wants it separate or as a 6698bis. That decision can be made > late. <no hat> This sounds like the right plan to me as well. I'm suspecting that having this in the operational draft is a good plan (and maybe also include it in a 6698bis as well, if one is written). It feels sort of operational, and I suspect that developers will read the op draft as well... </no hat> W P.S: Apologies for not responding earlier in the thread. I was in Beijing (for ICANN, don't ask…) and fell behind on mail. I was planning on reading mail using a web interface over a VPN (so I wouldn't have it stored locally), but a: I dislike web interfaces for mail[0], and b: for some unexplained, mysterious reason my VPN, which if fine everywhere else, refused to remain stable in Beijing… [0]: Yeah, yeah... > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane > -- "He who laughs last, thinks slowest." -- Anonymous _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
