IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DNSEXT WGLC: RFC2536bis and RFC2539bis

Samuel Weiler <weiler@tislabs.com> Thu, 27 October 2005 06:07 UTC

From: Samuel Weiler <weiler@tislabs.com>
Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC: RFC2536bis and RFC2539bis
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:07:51 -0400
Lines: 23
References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051017155946.03fbdd88@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
X-From: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org Thu Oct 27 08:17:17 2005
Return-path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
X-X-Sender: weiler@filbert
To: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair <ogud@ogud.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051017155946.03fbdd88@localhost>
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Message-ID:
Message-ID: <20140418072100.2560.14455.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>

> This message starts a 2 week Working Group Last call ending on
> November 1, for the two following documents:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2536bis-dsa-06.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2539bis-dhk-06.txt

I have not thoroughly reviewed either of these drafts, nor do I plan
to do so in the immediate future.

> The default action is to advance these documents, if you find any
> issues with the documents please raise them now.

I oppose this default and, in particular, I oppose publication of
these two documents under this WG's name without a meaningful review.
If the WG cannot find the resources to review these documents, then we
should consider dropping them as WG work items.

-- Sam

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email