Hi Jacob,
At 08:52 03-12-2013, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
In terms of informational RFCs, I think it is clearly a good idea to
document what is realistically in use.
Yes.
I assume that .local did not always have history? However, I think that
there are clearly many p2p systems with a history as well - .onion is
nearly ten years old now.
I was referring to the history within the IETF. The (draft) proposal
took over ten years to be published.
What would make it a good explanation?
I'll read the draft again and comment. Seriously, it is difficult to
tell what would be a good explanation. I would describe it as "the
person has thought about the issues and can provide good answers for them".
What is a better alternatively? Shall we ignore the IETF and ICANN
entirely? Shall we give up on IETF and shell out the cash to ICANN?
It is premature to give up on getting the draft published by the
IETF. I would answer "no" to the second question. :-)
The P2P systems push the boundary - the informational RFC merely
documents it and ensures that the IETF is the best place to find that
information.
I'd say put the process discussion on hold, focus on the technical
content; then discuss the draft within the IETF.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
