Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-04.txt

[Joe Abley <[e-mail]>]

On 2013-03-12, at 10:20, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> This is not to discourage late observations, but to ask about the
> quality of review that we did in the past, and also to ask whether, if
> we reopen this, whether we'll get adequate review in the next round of
> discussion.  There is no question that moving ECC-GOST from Optional
> to some other status is a substantive change to the document, and
> would need another WGLC and, IMO, IETF LC.  I would not be even
> remotely surprised if that LC failed for want of responses.

I seem to think that there's ample evidence that people think this document is worth publishing. I think that's established, regardless of the amount of feedback received for any future last call (low volumes or absence of response could be attribute to LG-fatigue.)

With respect to this change, if nobody has sufficient interest to comment perhaps the answer is that it's not actually substantive.


Joe