-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My main concern would be with actually _running_ the reverse three. If
we are not talking about relaying on this for services and
infrastructure - who do I call when it breaks?
- - kurtis -
On 2004-04-10, at 02.37, Tony Hain wrote:
> I agree wit
On 12-apr-04, at 15:15, Pekka Savola wrote:
Again,
unless there is impact to a 3rd party, putting local use addresses in
the
global DNS is none of the IETF's business.
If you look at the case 1) below, that for certainty is a case which
would impact third parties.
1) putting in local addresses
Jack,
At 08:14 AM 4/12/2004, Jack McCann USG wrote:
RFC 1981 was approved as a Draft Standard in August 1998
(see below). My attempts to have this corrected this in
STD 1 have been unsuccessful. Perhaps the chairs would
have better luck?
Thanks for reminding us. We will give it a try.
This ce
Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Tony Hain wrote:
|> Again,
|> unless there is impact to a 3rd party, putting local use addresses in the
|> global DNS is none of the IETF's business.
|
|If you look at the case 1) below, that for certainty is a case which
|would impact
RFC 1981 was approved as a Draft Standard in August 1998
(see below). My attempts to have this corrected this in
STD 1 have been unsuccessful. Perhaps the chairs would
have better luck?
- Jack
---
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: RFC Editor <[EMAIL PRO
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Tony Hain wrote:
> Again,
> unless there is impact to a 3rd party, putting local use addresses in the
> global DNS is none of the IETF's business.
If you look at the case 1) below, that for certainty is a case which
would impact third parties.
> > -Original Message-
>
'Making sense' or not is not something that the IETF needs to specify in
MUST/SHOULD/MAY terms. There may be reasons to discuss the potential impact
of implementing that way, but that is the most the IETF should do. Again,
unless there is impact to a 3rd party, putting local use addresses in the
gl
