On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Does anyone have any useful clarity improvement suggestions? We'll wait until 12:00PM UTC on Wednesday (20:00ET), otherwise we'll go ahead with the text as written, and ask Viktor to include it. W > > -- > Viktor. > > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane -- 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
