On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 05:15:35PM -0400, tjw ietf <[email protected]> wrote a message of 12 lines which said:
> The diffs between -09 and -10 are fairly large Large in bytes, but most of them don't change the meaning of the text (it is my opinion that most remarks during the IESG phase were nitpicking, and that the new -10 version is not an improvment, but it is not a degradation either.) The whole DHCP discussion is a good example. This being said, I've read -10, _and_ the diff, and I believe that, as I said before, the document is OK and can move forward. > Before we go and poke the ADs to clear their DISCUSS positions, we > want to make sure the WG has reviewed Sarah's updates I'm surprised by the new sentence in section 5 "it provides the maximum protection an attacker will allow". Surely, the attacker, if s·he has the choice, will not allow anything? _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
