Hi, > On Mar 17, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Christian Grothoff <groth...@gnunet.org> wrote: > I'm not generally against those at all, but I personally dislike that IETF > passes things quickly if they are backed by multi-billion dollar companies, > while putting > up high hurdles (and delays are obstacles) for proposals that are just > as sound but do not come with such support. Corporatocracy at its best.
I doubt arguments of this nature are particular helpful. My personal observation is that one of the problems with your draft is that due to the unrelated nature of the strings in question, it gives the impression of "buy one, get five for free". This unsurprisingly resulting in arguments about whether some of the proposed strings are or are not appropriate for special names status and loss of focus. More progress might be made if they were split out into independent (where appropriate) proposals. Or it might not. But of course, conspiracy theories are much more entertaining. Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
