On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 02:15:38PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > Ah, now I get it. You're arguing that the protocol restriction did exist > in the past, and now we're relaxing it, but only slightly.
No, I'm arguing, just as the document does, that some people may have understood this to be a protocol restriction because the document was not crystal clear about what was policy and what was not. My personal view is that it _was_ policy, that it was called out as such, and that if things break then that's a pity. But as an IETF geek, I'm concerned about interoperability. And so since the protocol/policy line was not always drawn as brightly in the past as it maybe could have been, let's explicitly say that certain things are just hunky dory. In my opinion, the alternative to this is to say nothing. If you are right and there never was any protocol issue here, then ICANN has taken over that problem and we don't have to solve it. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
