> On 22 Jan 2020, at 11:13, S Moonesamy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Eric, > At 08:08 AM 13-01-2020, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: >> There have been a lot of emails following the IETF last call (that expired >> 2nd of December 2019). Up to the point that now the discussion is about >> commenting comments that were comments on a previous comment. To be honest, >> I have lost the thread here. >> >> By this email, I am asking Sara and Stephane to propose a revised ID trying >> to integrate the maximum feedback that are based on facts/data rather than >> opinions. Once it is done, then we can continue the discussion in a more >> useful way. If the document is heavily updated, then I am requesting another >> IETF last call. > > Thank you for following up on the Last Call comments and for requesting > another Last Call[1]. I took a look at draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-04 and > the DPRIVE Working Group mailing lists. It looks like my comments were > either ignored or not addressed.
My apologies if you feel this was the case. When Eric made the request for a revised I-D I reviewed the existing discussions and made updates based on where the discussions had converged on agreement to update specific text. In the thread following your original comments I could not see any changes that had reached that stage so I didn’t make any specific updates based on it, but I do think some of the issues are address by other changes. I’ll follow up again on the original thread to try to resolve this. Regards Sara. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
