On Sunday, August 9, 2015, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 07:02:43PM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > I think you've already handled all the comments received > > in IESG evaluation in your local copy, is that correct? > > > > If so, please submit that and I'll give it a quick check (on > > Monday, sorrry) and then send a mail to get it sent forward > > to the RFC editor. > > In addition to the changes based on the IESG review comments, I > went over the whole thing, and added some more rationale text (as > requested in Fred Baker's review). Also some final editorial polish > of my own. > > Please let me know if I changed too much..., I can pare it back > closer to -14 if I went too far. > > It took two revisions to get the indentation of the quote from > RFC5246 to work right (sorry about that). So, to review the changes, > see: > > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-dane-ops-14&url2=draft-ietf-dane-ops-16 > > Yup, there is a lot of changes, but they all seem to be clear, reasonable and useful. They were also based upon IESG review, and so I think this is all fine. Thank you *very* much for all your work on this. W > -- > Viktor. > > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > 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
