On Friday, September 16, 2016, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:

> Hm, possibly what you mean is that it's not mentioned explicitly enough.
> I think the document covers the problem in quite a bit of detail, but the
> private domains stuff is mostly in the history section; I could understand
> if you felt that this provided insufficient clarity.

Speaking of history, DNSOP spent a huge amount of time talking about those
specific strings a year or two ago (and decided to not adopt Lyman's doc).
We can mention the issue in more depth (John, do you have any suggested
text (especially if we can avoid mentioning the specific strings again)?),
but we don't want to get into relitigating the whole topic here.


> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:10 PM, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jo...@taugh.com');>> wrote:
>> Section 4.1.2 of the tldr document actually says almost exactly what you
>>> said in your four-pronged strategy, but without the pejorative bit.
>> I just looked at it again, and don't see anything about the toxic waste
>> names.  Since they're the ones that are hard, I really think we need to
>> call them out.  Feel free to come up with a different metaphor if you don't
>> like the one about a part of the DNS space that's too polluted to use.
>> R's,
>> John

I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
DNSOP mailing list

Reply via email to