Brian I would feel the best approach would be to suggest the additions during WGLC and allow the working group and the authors to work through them. If it turns out there is an issue with consensus during the WGLC, we'll pause that process.
Does this help? thanks tim On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 4:13 PM Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com> wrote: > Quick meta-question: > > If there is new information that would suggest additions to the document > as helpful (improves document), which would be the normal or best approach: > > - Ask for additions to the document during the WGLC itself > - Offer comments on the addition alongside a request to delay the WGLC > until the authors have had a chance to review/respond to the comments > - State the opinion that the document is not ready for publication, > based on the comments > > Brian > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:22 PM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> This starts a Working Group Last Call for >> draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements >> >> Current versions of the draft is available here: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements/ >> >> The Current Intended Status of this document is: Informational >> >> Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. >> If this does not seem appropriate please speak out. >> If someone feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please >> speak out with your reasons. >> >> This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on: 2 >> November 2022 >> >> thanks >> tim >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >> >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
