On 7/1/15, 10:08, "Suzanne Woolf" <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >But I don't think it's impossible that we'll be able to provide guidance, >such that developers who follow it are reasonably sure of avoiding the >various types of collisions and ambiguities we're concerned about-- and >such that there's a clear basis for saying "You're doing something >outside of the guidance we can provide about how names work in the >internet, you're on your own."
(struct IETF *) We can always provide guidance. But processes cannot rely on applicants (tacit or not) to either be aware of the guidance or, more significantly, to heed it. Prepare for the best, expect the worst. (Or that "conservative, liberal" bon mot.) I certainly don't think it is "right" to *expect* that everyone will heed the guidance, so we need to build the process as if we didn't give the guidance in the first place. >This supports the initial suggestion that we need to get serious about a >6761bis, am I correct? Yes. I'm not satisfied with the process in RFC 6761.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
