Subject: Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405

From: Timothy Mcsweeney <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2020 02:59:08 -0400 (EDT)

> I'm hoping for a quick dispatch of this, but happy to discuss.

What's the hurry Ted?

I know you know your stuff but this draft seems somewhat "corrupted"

In your introduction you're talking about registering scheme "NAMES"

and then state "..there is no way in the current process set out in BCP 35 [RFC7595] to meet the requirement." ??

Section 5 of RFC3405 has nothing to do with that.

Maybe it's BCP 35 [RFC7595] that needs the update. But hey, at least we

both agree that uri.arpa registrations don't currently require permanent

status.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 09:10:29 -0700

> > I'm hoping for a quick dispatch of this, but happy to discuss.
Sorry if this is not clear, but DISPATCH just works out what the process is
for discussion of the draft; a "quick dispatch" doesn't mean to end the
discuss prematurely, it just means a quick decision on *where* to talk
about it.

regards,

Ted