> On Mar 9, 2017, at 18:54, tjw ietf <[email protected]> wrote:
> We’re going to go ahead and adopt it for DNSOP, with the intention of > resolving the concerns people expressed by keeping the status as > informational (not standards track) and making sure the cautions and > limitations the WG discussed on the use of RPZ are clear in the document. I don't understand how this works. The authors clearly stated the document will describe only what is currently implemented and they were not willing to make changes. How can this ever turn into a real WG document? Paul _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
