On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 09:54:30AM -0500, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > A reasonable observation. The responsibility to ensure that the nuances > of dependency were correctly noted in the past, or are correctly noted in > the present, remain. If only every "i" had been correctly crossed, every > "t" correctly dotted...
If that's the issue, then we're in very deep water indeed. RFCs 1034 and 1035 are not without ambiguity. > Loosely speaking, there is something that superficially resembles an > obligation I meant it in the simple sense that, given that they're the people making the policies, they have the responsibility to do certain work. It's only that sort of implicit obligation, and I'll cheerfully (well, glumly, but I'm not exactly Tigger) concede that legal ones are probably not there. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
