>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Authentication-Warning: opsmail.internic.net: majordom set sender to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: your mail
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randy Bush)
>Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 08:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (namedroppers), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jun Murai),
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (junsec), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato Akira),
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Plzak), [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Randy Bush
>> INTERNET-DRAFT Verio
>> draft-dnsop-root-opreq-00.txt 99.03.15
>>
>>
>> Root Name Server Operational Requirements
>
>VS.
>
>dnsop Randy Bush
>INTERNET-DRAFT Verio
>draft-bush-dnsop-root-opreq-00.txt Mark Kosters
>April 1999 Network Solutions
>
> Root Name Server Operational Requirements
>
>...
>
>
> It looks like very little of the discussion that occured on the
>namedroppers mailing list as a result of the posting of your first draft
>has made it into your second iteration. And given the name change,
>many people will never know that many of the root operators have already
>raised concerns about presumptions made and not backed up in these drafts.
>I find it odd that these documents in no way reflect any relationship to
>RFC 2010, "Operational Criteria for Root Name Servers".
>
>
>--
>--bill
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
--Thomas Jefferson
