[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NSEC3, version 13
At 12:36 01/12/2007, Ted Lindgreen wrote:
[Quoting Sam Hartman, on Nov 30, 17:34, in "Re: NSEC3, version 1 ..."]
> However, since there are objections, I assume the chairs will also
> call for support;silence in the presence of objections is not rough
> consensus.
I share Sam's concern, I also think that silence does not suffice
to go forward.
We have IMHO a consensus on the document, what I need to know from
the working group member is if this change does affect their understanding
and expectations of the protocol.
This is a form of consensus call and should be just fine as the
explicit way to judge the consensuses is expressed.
NSEC3 is a very complicated protocol extention. Few people, even
in this WG, really understand the issues at hand, those who do,
should speak up and guarantee the rest of us that all issues are
now solved,
This is not a fair request without you saying what you mean by
"guarantee the rest of us that all issues are now solved".
Is this a guarantee that the expert has to pay penalty if she/he is wrong?
Did you mean to say "assert that he/she knows of NO issues with the
current specification".
Olafur
--
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/>