Paul Wouters <[email protected]> writes: > This is why I also think 8624bis is better than a stand-alone document, > as it takes into account security effects, market deployment, and > trying to push the deployments to where we want it to go, instead of just > issuing a document the current deployments have no choice but to > ignore.
So, I took the liberty of stealing much text (as all good authors do). I submitted a draft-hardaker-dnsop-rfc8624-bis leaving both you and Ondrej as co-authors (because it would be extremely rude not to), and I'm sure we can come to agreement about what the expected table entries and text should look like. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
