I have reviewed the document, and believe it is ready for publication. I do not have a strong opinion regarding including/excluding section 9, but if it makes the document cleaner, maybe it could go into its own document? (I will go along with group concensus on this and this is just a very weak suggestion.)
Brian Dickson On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear DANE WG, > > The authors of draft-ietf-dane-ops have indicated that they believe > that the document is ready, and have asked for Working Group Last Call > (actually, they requested this a while back, we'd delayed while doing > toe other docs...) > > The draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dane-ops/ > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is ready for > publication and send comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > > This WGLC ends Mon 11-May-2015. > > > In addition, to satisfy RFC 6702 ("Promoting Compliance with > Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)"): > Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to > draft-ietf-dane-ops? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance > with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more > details.) > > Thanks, > Warren Kumari > (as DANE WG co-chair) > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf > > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
