paf:
At least post here your suggested replacement text. Assuming Mark (and
others) are on board with it, we can put it in an RFC Editor for the
time being and roll a new version after IESG Eval.
pr
On 3/4/15 11:29 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
All, specifically Mark,
This was a stupid editorial mistake by myself. It should have been replaced. So much for merging documents when being too tired 23:00 in the evening on the day the AD had given me a deadline... My apologies.
Pete, please let me know when you want a new version, -13.txt
Patrik
On 5 mar 2015, at 00:41, Mark Nottingham<mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Pete,
The example still uses a Web home page, even though this use of the URI record isn't specified nor used by any implementation I'm aware of (and even if there were one, it wouldn't be interoperable).
Changing to another example would fix this.
Cheers,
On 5 Mar 2015, at 9:25 am, Pete Resnick<presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[Explicitly Cc'ing folks who participated in the thread.]
On 2/27/15 10:24 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
I'm going to ask Patrik to publish a revised ID at this point, which I expect to see in the next couple of days.
The new version of the document (-12) is out, announcement attached. It is now Informational, it removes the discussion of flag "D" for NAPTR, and adds a bit of discussion to security considerations. I would appreciate folks giving it a sniff and making sure it addresses your earlier concerns. If so, I'll go ahead and ballot it for the 12-March IESG telechat.
Thanks,
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
<Attached Message.eml>
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478