--On 23. november 2006 08:18 -0800 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:
The draft is incomplete. It does not review all the technical options.
These were raised on the DNSEXT list months ago.
Where's the draft?
If you want there to be consensus on a draft then it has to put all the
options fairly.
If you want to refer to the draft as an authority you have to consider
all the options.
Where's the draft? (of the options, not of -dns-choices)
I also do not agree that the document should not proceed
without addressing the pointer mechanism. The document is not
of the type that specifies new solutions, it documents
tradeoffs. If your pointer mechanism would be more than
'mail-ware' (i.e. had sufficient review and consensus) then
it could have been part of the equation. I think that its to
late for that.
How is it going to have review if the editors refuse to consider it?
Where's the draft?
Something that is not documented even as an internet-draft cannot be
seriously considered in a review of current options line -choices.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf