Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on<draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-08.txt>

On Jun 16, 2005, at 1:38 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Ted - the draft didn't pass last call because I found a bunch of
> substantive comments in a doc that a few people said was "OK as is"  
> and
> most people didn't comment on at all.  I don't think it's quite baked,
> yet.

I don't object to any of your comments, but I also don't see any of  
them as anything but editorial, and I think the draft is fine without  
them.   I think "not quite baked" isn't accurate.   I don't object to  
Bernie making the changes you've proposed.   However, as I say, these  
seem like editorial changes; I apologize for not commenting on the  
changes that you call "substantive," but when I originally read your  
message I didn't register that you considered them more than  
editorial, and I didn't object to any of them, so I didn't see any  
reason to comment.

Can we get a respin (please, without the algorithm changes Stuart  
proposed) and bring this back to last call right away, or is there  
something that you think stands in the way of this?

I'm sorry if my previous message seemed to make the point a little  
too strongly, but I am really surprised by all of this - I don't see  
an announcement of this decision in my inbox, so unless I somehow  
missed the announcement, Bernie's response to Stuart really was the  
first I'd heard of it.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg