On Jan 12, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> RFC 2050 is outdated and historic and its status should be made to >> reflect that truth. > made your bed, sleep in it. Mea culpa, but it's time to get out of bed. > maybe learn not to do it again? nope. To be clear, I think RFC 2050 was helpful when it was published, however as I said, the Internet has moved on and I believe there are better venues in which operational policies for addresses can be developed. I figure it's called "best _current_ practice" for a reason. > we need bookkeepers. we get wannabe regulators. +1 > now we have wannabe > regulators who want to write the regulations completely outside of > coordination with the rest of the community. oh goodie. I don't believe moving RFC 2050 to historic implies the operational community efforts to develop policy is "completely outside coordination with the rest of the community". I would, in fact, be quite supportive of (and would even contribute to (if it would be helpful)) IETF input to ICANN/IANA on a replacement for RFC 2050. Regards, -drc