Re: Q18: TTL values for RRSIG vs. RFC2181

[Miek Gieben <miekg@atoom.net>]

[On 31 Oct, @21:27, Rob wrote in "Re: Q18:  TTL values for RRSIG ..."]
> <hat=editor>
> 
> I don't like "meta type" ('cause then we'd have to explain what it
> means, which would almost certainly be harder than just saying
> whatever it is that we do mean in the first place...), but I think
> that the editors can handle the wordsmithing unless the WG feels a
> strong need to constrain us to specific text.
> 
> The question before the WG is whether we've understood the content
> issue correctly.
> 
> </hat>

I feel that making this exception for the SIG's TTL is the right thing
to do.

grtz Miek

--
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/>