On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:21 PM, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: >> >> Face to face time is rare. It also does not include everyone that's on >> the list. So where possible, discussion on the lists is always preferred. > > > A good bar. A high bar. A high bar, which I don't think the "design team" > output can meet because I've checked the archives, to match my memory, and > substantive discussion on the qualities of the idea of having a registry > are few: there are nits on the words of the revision, but we've yet to > actually broach "do we want to do this" in any real form. > > So consider the door open on that discussion: > > Folks: Do we *really* want to do this? Do we really *want* to revise > RFC6761? Can we talk about this a bit? > RFC6761 in the context of root zone was a huge MISTAKE, please push document though. We have wasted enough time on 6761 fallouts, it is time for the misery to end. > > Me? I don't want to do this. I want a process that is so rarely invoked, > you have to be a lot taller to get on the ride, than at present. I want a > substantive IETF-wide technically understood reason that is breaking > architecture, avoiding URI methods, requiring code, that we all understand. > > And certainly not "because a lot of users now depend on it, because we > squatted" > > George, thanks for writing this up I support this document and want to see the mistake named RFC6761 erased We should have something to point squatters to and that is where ".alt" fits in. Olafur
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
