Hello Joe, > If I thought things were fine as they are I wouldn't have said > anything.
I hear you. :-) > But I'm just providing a review as requested, I claim no right of > veto and make no statements about consensus :-) Appreciated. :-) However, to clarify the question: Would this not being addressed be a consensus inhibitor for you? If so, would, e.g., a statement explicitly acknowledging this and contextualizing it help with that (instead of expanding the document for everything beyond plain DNS-over-UDP/TCP)? I personally think that going for the option you suggested would open another box, and likely be difficult for, e.g., Ralph in a similar sense as the current version for you. The most both-sides-agreeable option would, imho, be an acknowledgement and ref to RFC9539. With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
