Op 17 sep. 2023 om 17:40 heeft Murray S. Kucherawy het
volgende geschreven:
> The reason I'm asking, though, is that we had 7719 in 2015, which was
> replaced by 8499 in 2019, and now this revision. Since we consider RFCs
> expensive to produce, I thought it was a reasonable question to ask.
On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 7:53 AM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 5:01 AM Joe Abley wrote:
>
>> Hi Murray!
>>
>> Op 17 sep. 2023 om 08:07 heeft Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
>> nore...@ietf.org> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> > I thought the IESG (though maybe not this
On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 5:01 AM Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi Murray!
>
> Op 17 sep. 2023 om 08:07 heeft Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
> nore...@ietf.org> het volgende geschreven:
>
> > I thought the IESG (though maybe not this particular one) had previously
> > discouraged publishing "living
Hi Murray!
Op 17 sep. 2023 om 08:07 heeft Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
het volgende geschreven:
> I thought the IESG (though maybe not this particular one) had previously
> discouraged publishing "living documents" like this one in the RFC series. So
> why aren't we doing this as a wiki
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please
