Victor
I read the whole document and I think version 16 is significantly better than
14 in clarity.
Thank you for being such a good editor
Thanks to the IESG and community reviewers for helping making the document
better.
Olafur
-----Original Message-----
From: "Viktor Dukhovni" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, 9 August, 2015 00:56
To: [email protected]
Cc: "Wes Hardaker" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dane] Mail regarding draft-ietf-dane-ops
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
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
