John R Levine wrote: > ... > > But once again, if we start inventing hoops for people to jump > through, they won't. That's counterproductive since we have no control > over what they're doing, so we'd like them to voluntarily tell us.
i am concerned about the above implicit mischaracterization of the opposing view, since the opposing view is mine in this case. there are no hoops here. people will register if they want to, and people will check the registry if they want to. so, we are not in control of what people are doing, and we're not trying to be. this discussion is going to proceed more efficiently if we each speak for ourselves. so: offering someone a chance to register that a conflict exists does not serve the purpose of advancing interoperability. that is, the information "ONION.ALT exists, see http://whatever"; is useful, whereas the information "ONION.ALT exists, see http://someplace and/or http://someplace_else"; is not useful. this, to me, is what FCFS means. -- Paul Vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
