On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 04:08:35PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> > With Section 9 ideally no longer under a cloud of uncertainty,
> > we would also update section 12:
>
> We have heard nothing from the working group saying that they are
> unhappy with the new section 9, and it seems clear.
And yet the language is somewhat muddy and repetitive, and confused
at least John Gilmore about what it was trying to say. Furthermore
Section 12 disclaims consensus, but I think we should reach concensus
on digest agility (if we have not yet).
> The Working Group reviewed this document, and we called consensus on
> it (and then waited a bit to see if anyone came out of the woodwork,
> looking sad), and so I believe that this *does* have WG consensus, and
> so the [Note:...] can be removed.
Thanks. I'll remove the note, but I would very much like to improve
the clarity of the section 9 text (without changing the technical
content). I have such an update queued-up. How might we proceed
to adopt it?
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
