Hi all, As we are heading to obsolete RFC 8624, I'd like we clean-up the two pending errata for this RFC before draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis is sent to the RFC Editor.
Seems the plan was to reject these two per the following threads: * 6227: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/GdpzvW7nqQ20BkKAchg74Wm398M/ * 8144: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/EgKunMFXJ_0ZxHvhRNQTPBvccIY/ There were some comments about the need to clarify the intended audience (e.g., a comment from John: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/SllZ7KuGAbY5t5QrLEGTw4fHYYY/). Wes/Warren, can you please check that one. Unless I hear any objection by the end of next week, I will mark these two as rejected. Thank you. Cheers, Med ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
