I agree - further discussions of CGA-TSIG / CGA-TSIGe do not seem to
be a good use of WG time.
Thank you Hosneih, but we will not be further discussing this
document. I also did not see support for giving it meeting time.
W
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
wrote:
> On Fri,
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
> > I agree that the first versions might be confusing.
>
> I have looked at the current draft and it is still just as confusing to
> me. I do not feel that it is a good use of our time to
On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
> I agree that the first versions might be confusing.
I have looked at the current draft and it is still just as confusing to me. I
do not feel that it is a good use of our time to cycle on this draft just to
get it to be understandable to typ
> >
> > > Are you interested on working on CGA-TSIGe and would you like to
> > > devote some (10 minutes) of the meeting time in Dallas to a
> > > presentation / discussion on CGA-TSIGe?
> >
> > I'm not. Currently, it's really too confused for me, and backed by
> > dubious claims.
>
> Same here, a
At Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:42:49 +0100,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Warren Kumari wrote
> a message of 92 lines which said:
>
> > Are you interested on working on CGA-TSIGe and would you like to
> > devote some (10 minutes) of the meeting time in Dallas to a
> > presentation / discussion on CGA-T
> I'm not. Currently, it's really too confused for me, and backed by
> dubious claims.
Is it the same as new version? my explanation wasn't clear? What did you find
confusing?
___
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mail
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 07:11:42PM -0500,
Warren Kumari wrote
a message of 92 lines which said:
> Are you interested on working on CGA-TSIGe and would you like to
> devote some (10 minutes) of the meeting time in Dallas to a
> presentation / discussion on CGA-TSIGe?
I'm not. Currently, it's r
