Hi All, Please note that I will be out of the office next week and not reading email. I will continue to respond to IETF Last call comments on my return.
Best regards Sara. > On 20 Jan 2020, at 21:45, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks to Sara and Stéphane for the -04 revised I-D. > > After reading the -04, I think that most of the IETF Last Call comments are > addressed (and consensus needs to be balanced -- even for informational > document) and that the document sticks to facts. > > But, as section 3.5.1 ("in the recursive resolvers") raised a lot of > discussions during the first IETF Last Call, and as the authors reacted to > those comments by deep changes in the text, let's have a new IETF Last Call > before proceeding with IESG evaluation. > > Again, thank you to the reviewers and the authors > > Regards, > > -éric > > > On 20/01/2020, 22:34, "IETF Secretariat" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > IESG state changed: > > New State: Last Call Requested > > (The previous state was Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup) > > The previous last call raised several points. The authors have worked on > those points and this new informational IETF draft has substantive changes; > enough to go trigger a new IETF Last Call. > > -éric > > Datatracker URL: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
