Am I preaching to the choir, or do people disagree with me?
It would be good to let your opinions be known.
Otherwise, we might allow further misleading and false claims about
whether in-addr is required. In-addr is not required, nor will this draft
(despite its misleading name) change that. It should also not be allowed
to mislead people on the policies of other organizations, nor should it be
allowed to promote bad practices by applications or otherwise mislead
people as to the purpose and utility of in-addr.
--Dean
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Dean Anderson wrote:
> This draft was already discussed and rejected. I note that the draft 04
> has been deleted from the IETF site.
>
> Instead of addressing any of the many previous issues addressed against
> the 04 draft, as demonstrated by reviewing the archives of that
> discussion, it simply rehashes the same wrong claims made by the 04 draft.
>
> Indeed, it was pointed out that it does not accurately state ARIN's policy
> on the subject. This was just one of _many_ problems, but probably the
> easiest to fix. It is practically an insult to resubmit this draft in its
> present form.
>
> So, why is it coming up again?
>
> Can we finally kill this once and for all?
>
> --Dean
>
> ***In fact, according to Leslie Nobile, ARIN is considering dropping
> in-addr support in the future, and has gone so far as to engage its
> attorney's to research the question of whether it is obligated to provide
> the service. Their lawyers say they are not obligated.
>
>
>
>
>
> .
> dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
> web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
> mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
>
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
