Hi, While I don't want to obstruct progress on this draft, I do intend to write a draft that addresses my points and aims to obsolete rfc7626-bis.
This topic can be contentious, so I don't have an eventual RFC as a goal (but that would be ok). thanks, Rob On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 11:44 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > [- WG mailing list - secretariat] > > Dear authors [Sara no need for urgent reply], > > There were little reactions during the Last Call. Do you want to issue an > revised ID or simply go ahead with the current revision ? With Rob Sayre's > 45 points, a revised I-D is really required (and Sara has already replied > to all points, so, just need to issue the text). > > Hence, I am changing the state to 'revised I-D needed', then the last mile > run with IESG ballot __ > > -éric > > On 03/02/2020, 20:17, "IETF Secretariat" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > IESG state changed: > > New State: Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup > > (The previous state was Waiting for AD Go-Ahead) > > > 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
