At 01:17 20/10/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
1591 norms and definitions, and a large fraction of top-level domains and others have declined to accept the ICANN version, 1591 probably still does represent a best practice consensus in most respects.
The ccTLD community has a BCP under "preparation" for a while and globally abides by the version we completed in Dec. 2000. It is mainly based on RFC 1591.
There is certainly a need for a liaison between the IETF and the ccTLD. However the response of Brian to my proposition to introduce the hows at the Luxembourg meeting, shown a confusion between Registry Manager's role and community trustee. This is the same confusion which mares the relations with ICANN. The comming Tunis resolution may help solving this situation. This is why most of the proposed additions to RFC 2606bis seem an unwelcome and inappropriate debate right now (unless IETF wants to get involved in the international network operations).
jfc _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf