On 04/23/2013 02:02 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
Objecting to the notion without
offering fixes is like saying "I don't want soup to exist because
watching people eat it might make me want it in the future".
Wes, that's not only not true, it's at best inflammatory, and IMO ad
hominem.
As I pointed out in previous posts (where I was loudly shouted down)
there is a rather large opportunity cost to creating something that's
sort of good, but not likely to be deployed due to fundamental flaws.
Arguably there are several opportunity costs involved, but the most
important may be that by the protocol wonks claiming to have solved the
problem, but the RRR community not deploying the solution because it
doesn't meet their needs, we risk a repeat of the same situation we have
had in the past where both sides stand in their respective corners
pointing fingers and calling each other names.
Completely ignore me and my registry/registrar experience if you like.
Ed is coming from the perspective of one of the largest registries in
the world (read, the intended audience for this draft[1]), and telling
you that there are problems with it. It might be worth a listen.
Doug
[1] I realize that non-TLD parents can also use this mechanism, but that
use case is in the margins relative to the utility that it would have at
the TLD level.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
