Re: [dnsext] Authenticated denial of existence...

On 11/19/13, 10:52 PM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>  dnsext does exist, its just not meeting.  it (in a perfect world) would be shut down.
>  if the "conflict" is DNSEXT (not currently accepting new work, but still existing) and ISE,
>  then there is really no other route than ISE, since the WG refuses to take the work on and
>  there is no other existent venue.

DNSEXT is concluded. the mailing list continues.

> 
>  e.g. a conflict, but self-imposed by the lack of will to actually shut down a zombie WG.
> 
>  IMHO of course.
> 
> /bill
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:27:56AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 2013, at 12:51 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>>> why do you ask?
>>
>> Conflict review.  My impression is the same, and it can be argued that since DNSEXT no longer exists, there can't be a conflict.  But I wanted to bounce it off the list before making that claim, since in principle the work could be done in INTAREA, but would probably be done by people who read this mailing list.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
> 

Re: [dnsext] Authenticated denial of existence...

Attachment: signature.asc