On 03-02-2021 20:31, Paul Hoffman wrote:
For each of these, I'd recommend specifying what a client does in each of the
cases, rather than weasel wording the SHOULD with respect to the zone contents
to turn this into an implementable protocol.
Here, I agree that the draft is unclear. It
> On Feb 3, 2021, at 3:24 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe.
> On 2/3/2021 2:31 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 2021, at
On Feb 3, 2021, at 3:24 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> On 2/3/2021 2:31 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 2021, at 9:31 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>> I can't support this as Standards track even though it purports to update
>>> standards as it doesn't actually specify an implementable
On 2/3/2021 2:31 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jan 29, 2021, at 9:31 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
I can't support this as Standards track even though it purports to update
standards as it doesn't actually specify an implementable protocol.
Basically, this is dependent upon humans doing the
On Jan 29, 2021, at 9:31 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> I can't support this as Standards track even though it purports to update
> standards as it doesn't actually specify an implementable protocol.
> Basically, this is dependent upon humans doing the right thing, rather than
> specifying
