Florian Weimer wrote:
I'm confused. I thought the message mentioned by Thierry is
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and Rob's reply is contained in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; the latter is a
reply in all relevant senses I can currently think of.
Perhaps there was another message to the four authors that hasn't been
Cc:ed to the mailing list, which was actually "private" and not merely
"off the record" (or whatever), but I can't infer that from Rob's
I was working on the theory that "private e-mail message from me to the four
authors" meant off the list.
If the note was more public than that -- as your note and Lucy's suggests, and
yes I saw that cited note -- than the issue of "private" is moot.
My real point, of course, is that it doesn't matter.
The question would appear to be whether there is serious working group
consensus to go counter to Rob's default decision and, instead, to discuss the
merits of the topic -- as opposed to niggling process nuances.
Based on my own reading of 12 hours of postings, there so far appears not to be.
d/
ps. FWIW, I decided to dive in on this because I have nothing to do with the
particular topic -- and therefore no biases about it -- and I like seeing wg
chairs try to make progress, albeit in a well-documented manner, such as Rob
has done.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
