Re: [DNSOP] requesting WGLC for 5011-security-considerations

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> writes:

> On 7/6/2017 1:40 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>>> I'm sure you think that... but the small changes you've made to
>>> address some of my comments haven't gone far enough.  There's also a
>>> need for a grammar and syntax pass on the document.
>> Thanks for the review and suggested text (the previous messages you sent
>> didn't provide as many concrete fixes, so we can now incorporate you
>> exact issues now that they're more directed).  We'll try to put together
>> an update to address the issues you've pointed out shortly (which really
>> can't happen till Monday of IETF since we're after cut-off).
>
> I didn't provide concrete fixes because the general model was missing
> the point and the re-write could have been substantial. Now we're
> finally on the same page that this only applies to "exclusively
> signing with the new keys" we can make progress.  It wasn't until this
> last version that you'd adopted those changes.

We disagreed about the proper way to word it.  We always agreed on the
idea.  It's good to clarify it more completely to ensure everyone else
reads that intent though.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI