On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > > If I am in the rough, perhaps it's because I am one of the very few people > who > take time to read docs like this, in detail. I recall that Chris admitted, > at the > mic, that he had not read the adverse actions I-D, so I don't know if he > also
I didn't read the adverse actions well enough to matter, yes. > didn't read (or read carefully) the validation reconsidered doc. I get the > sense I did read the validation reconsidered doc a few times... most recently when making the presentation I gave. I didn't enjoy some of the text as much, and think a bunch of 'clean up the wording' has to happen, but I do think (as my slides said) that the intent is an appropriate change to improve robustness of the system. -chris _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
