Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call [draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse]

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Okey dokey, everyone!
>
> I will be attempting to re-add, and better explain the "positive" answers bit.
> I really appreciate all of the feedback which we have received - I'm
> juggling a few plates at the moment, and so am somewhat distracted,
> but I'll try integrate them fully and in order.
>
> This will likely require some assistance / patience from the WG to
> make sure that I've worded things cleanly / clearly.

Ok everyone -- I have put back the "positive text", and have reworded
a bunch of surrounding stuff to try and make it more clear.
Unfortunately while doing this I have moved so much around that I am
having a hard time making sure that I have correctly integrated /
addressed everyones comments. The new "wildcard" text also seems
suspiciously short, but I'm having a hard time writing better text.

Basically at this point I've spent so much time staring at the same
bits of text (and shuffling it around) that my brain is dribbling out
my ears.

Please have a look and let me know if it is OK, and if not, please
suggest some text. If I've missed your comments, or somehow messed
them up, I'm truly sorry, please let me know (preferably by providing
text or using baby words!) and I'll try address them.

I was initially just going to submit to Github and ask for review
there, but reordering the sections made enough of a change (and I want
wider review) that I figured I should just publish -04.

Thank you all,
W


>
> W
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/6/16 3:58 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 01:47:28PM -0400,
>>>  John R Levine <[e-mail]> wrote
>>>  a message of 34 lines which said:
>>>
>>>> It still seems to me that the time to add the wildcards back in
>>>> would be less than the time to do two separate documents.  Unless
>>>> there's some reason that this needs to be published in a hurry,
>>>
>>>
>>> Not for me, I'm fine with a delay (there have been many important
>>> changes between -02 and -03, during the WGLC, so, some time to digest
>>> and study them may be worth it).
>>>
>>
>> I agree. There is no need to hurry this along. I'd rather get this right.
>>
>> tim
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>    ---maf



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf