Dear authors, The revised I-D should mainly address Francesca Palombini's 2nd COMMENT point (which was also raised by Alvaro Retana). Both of them told me that they were about to raise a blocking DISCUSS on this specific point, so let's address is. It is mainly about either changing a SHOULD into a MUST or explaining when the SHOULD can be ignored.
Of course, addressing the other points would improve the quality of the documents. Once a revised I-D addressing Francesca's point, I am approving the document and sending it to the RFC Editor. Regards -éric -----Original Message----- From: IETF Secretariat <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 10 March 2022 at 16:21 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Eric Vyncke <[email protected]> Subject: Datatracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10.txt> IESG state changed: New State: Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed (The previous state was IESG Evaluation) Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/ _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
