Paul: IMO, this thread is just an example of a need to find a logical way to describe the DNS problems and the solutions. Part of the problem in the DNS discussions, IMO, is that there is not even a "language" to describe the problem -- which, then, tends to frustrate the participants in a dialogue, and we get postings like yours. Public discussions, however, should also help develop such language, and that is why we need to use them not for troll feeding but to serve the higher purpose of communication -- while the postings that may serve the purpose of stopping communication should be tappered off. Then, from this improved language, an Internet Draft will flow most naturally and be most naturally received. Thus, I would invite you, either off- or on-list, to present your technical viewpoint -- which I am sure is very valuable. My observation is simple to describe. If a name query returns two answers (and today's malconfigured systems may do just that, too) but we have a meta-system that is able to automatically (or, manually if we so wish) disambiguate them for us so, then we are fine. The point is that rather than trying to be always decidable and complete (which attempt WILL fail), we have a system that is as complete as possible and leaves the decidability issue to a meta-system. Different meta-systems may decide in different ways, but this is good too -- because you can choose which meta-system to use. Note that I always mention "meta-system" -- I would not suggest changes to the DNS, in the same that I was not in favor of changing the DNS in order to accomodate PKI. Finally, my thought is that if we are willing to use public discussions to mine the gold of truth, then we should be open and receptive to those discussions, as well as when to end them and digest what was said. Thanks for your input. Ed Gerck Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > Ed and Stef are smart enough to know that the IETF won't seriously > consider their "proposals" without an Internet Draft; the fact that > one doesn't exist should tell us all something. > > Ed and Stef are also smart enough to know that for every response > they give, someone else will keep up the conversation. Is this really > the best use of the IETF mailing list? > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --Internet Mail Consortium > > - > This message was passed through ietf_censored@carmen.ipv6.cselt.it, which > is a sublist of ietf@ietf.org. Not all messages are passed. > Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.