Wes,
Thanks for taking the time out to sort out these issues and rev the
draft. I've reviewed your changes with the comments on the list (as
well as my own editorial comments) and I feel you have addressed all of
the issues raised.
All,
I'm going to re-read the latest version over the weekend and unless we
hear from others, will consider the group has reached consensus and we
are ready to move it along to the next stage.
thanks
tim
On 5/13/14 8:50 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
[email protected] writes:
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-dnsop-child-syncronization-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Wes Hardaker and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-ietf-dnsop-child-syncronization
Revision: 01
Title: Child To Parent Synchronization in DNS
Document date: 2014-05-13
Group: dnsop
Pages: 13
URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-child-syncronization-01.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-child-syncronization/
Htmlized:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-child-syncronization-01
Diff:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-child-syncronization-01
This version addresses all outstanding issues mentioned during the
WGLC. Please correct me if you feel your issue was not covered
properly, given the discussions on the list.
From my point of view, this is ready to go forward to the next peg on
the peg board we call "the game of the IETF" Tim and Suzanne.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
