On 11/26/2010 14:28, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 02:15:38PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Ah, now I get it. You're arguing that the protocol restriction did exist
in the past, and now we're relaxing it, but only slightly.
No, I'm arguing, just as the document does, that some people may have
understood this to be a protocol restriction because the document was
not crystal clear about what was policy and what was not. My personal
view is that it _was_ policy, that it was called out as such, and that
if things break then that's a pity. But as an IETF geek, I'm
concerned about interoperability. And so since the protocol/policy
line was not always drawn as brightly in the past as it maybe could
have been, let's explicitly say that certain things are just hunky
dory.
Ok, so you're using different words but the end result is the same, and
I still object.
In my opinion, the alternative to this is to say nothing.
I actually have a lot of sympathy for this course of action. But given
what I know about the policy side of it, and the fact that Joe/ICANN is
the author of the current draft, I seriously doubt that we can beg off
here.
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
