I don't have a 'talk' but I'd like to see a discussion on what's in epp-secdns.
I have no problems to raise with the draft, but I want to make sure we have a more representative review of it.
This week on NANOG there was a comment insinuating that the IETF does not sufficiently review protocols such as this.
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg04399.html followed up by: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg04417.html http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg04423.html http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg04442.html
Besides the trite "please read and comment" I think that we ought to spend some time generating interest in and exposure of this well-written draft to make sure it's getting a quality review.
At 8:12 AM -0800 1/19/05, David Meyer wrote:
Folks,
Its that time again. We've asked the secretariat to schedule a two hour sessions this time. Please forward agenda items to Rob ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and me ([email protected]), and let us know:
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." - Jebediah Springfield . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
