On Mon, 17 Mar 2015, John Levine wrote:
PW> It is such a big problem that we should not even mention it in PW> the document?
Note how I wrote "mention", not "solve".
Yes, it is. You have no idea.
You say I cannot "mention" it.
Unless you are vastly smarter than everyone else who has looked at this problem, you're not going to solve it any time soon.
I am not trying to "solve" it. I just want to "mention" it.
As I've said before, if you try to advance a draft with language anything like what's in section 3.1, it will be shot down in IETF last call and again in the IESG, neither time by me.
Which is why I asked you if the text just "mentioning" the problem is okay or not. If this problem is such a taboo that we cannot even mention it, it is the IETF process that needs fixing, not Section 3.1. That said, since you seem to be in the know about what text leads to failure, it would be good to know what text you think is least likely to lead to failure (without saying "none" which is not an acceptable choice to me and others) Paul _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
