I agree with Warren that there is solid consensus.
tim
(I'm traveling as well the next two weeks, working with a slight delay)
On 3/9/15 2:18 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
Oh, I should mention that I'm at IEEE in Berlin at the moment, and so
I haven't confirmed this call with my co-chair. It's possible he has
a different view here, in which case he and I will duke it out
offline, or on the stage in Dallas.
W
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote:
Thank you everyone who participated.
In my opinion there is consensus for publishing this document (after
Stephane has folded in all comments[0]).
Many of the comments were about the contents without clear "I approve
of this document" statements, but in my view the tone was positive.
W
[0]: I apologize, I have not checked the version in git to see if
*all* comments have already been addressed.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote:
Dear DPRIVE WG,
The authors of draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement have indicated that
they believe that the document is ready, and have asked for Working
Group Last Call.
The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement/
This document was discussed at the DPRIVE meeting at IETF91 - some
notes here: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dprive/minutes?item=minutes-91-dprive.html
The document has also been worked on in GitHub, here:
https://github.com/bortzmeyer/my-IETF-work
It has also received a fair bit of on-list discussion.
Please review this draft to see if you think it is ready for
publication and send comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
Even if you previously expressed support for the document (e.g during
adoption), please respond to the WGLC showing that you still support
it.
This WGLC ends Mon 09-Mar-2015.
In addition, to satisfy RFC 6702 ("Promoting Compliance with
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)"):
Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement? If so, has this IPR been
disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879,
3669, and 5378 for more details.)
Thanks,
Warren Kumari
(as DPRIVE WG co-chair)
--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
---maf
--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
---maf
_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
