Hi Thijs, On Tuesday 20 May 2008 11:58, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > Reading that blog post, it becomes clear to me that there's no immediate > problem with this address, only that it ideally "shouldn't have been done > this way". I don't see a ground for doing this "asap". with "asap" wasn't meant DSA-like. > Of course such an update could be put into the next point update if the > maintainer provides it and the SRM's think it's ok. Alternatively we could > roll it into another DSA for bind if an issue with bind would come up > sometime in the future. Lets see what LaMont says. :) With kind regards, Jan. -- Never write mail to <waja@spamfalle.info>, you have been warned! -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GIT d-- s+: a- C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M V- PS PE Y++ PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI- D++ G++ e++ h-- r+++ y+++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
pgpKVn6GFCguz.pgp
Description: PGP signature