Re: Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>> how depressing.  one obvious curiousity is who asked the one-sided
>> question?  otoh, maybe i don't want to know.  but i wish you had
>> perceived a wider responsibility to the community.
> 
> It was discussed at length in the working group, so I would say that
> you could In principle have raised this concern sooner.  However, I
> will admit that it didnʼt occur to me to do so either. In any case, it
> really is a separate issue from that covered by this draft, and so
> thereʼs no reason why we canʼt do this work if you think itʼs worth
> doing. Given the situation with ICANN and GTLD, it may be moot, but I
> wouldnʼt mind writing it down.

we really should not cover our eyes when we send in the assassins.

i would offer to put my keyboard where my mouth is.  but i fear that, at
the bottom, i would have the unreasonable desire for dns classes to
support these kinds of things.  i.e. i don't think we have a clean fix.
but it would be nice to document the good with the bad.

randy





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]