-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Zefram == Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Zefram Last week I published an I-D, draft-main-sane-tld-00, which
Zefram argued that there is a need in various Internet protocols for
I'll read your draft, which I have not yet done.
Zefram The
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 06:48:40PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 21:15:35 GMT, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm looking for discussion of the problem more than the solution at this
stage; my I-D does outline a couple of possible solutions, but considering
the
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 09:15:35PM +, Zefram wrote:
I'm looking for discussion of the problem more than the solution at this
stage; my I-D does outline a couple of possible solutions, but considering
the issues that have arisen already in respect of the problem statement,
solution finding
So I'd like opinions from the wider IETF membership: is the problem my
I-D describes something that the IETF should be concerned about?
Perhaps, but I think it's fundamentally unsolvable: any namespace has to
be administered, and any administration process can be challenged in
court. You
At 22:14 30/10/01, Michael Richardson wrote:
The major obstucle is the IPtelcos/CableCos
who aren't being very retinscent to actually let people being peers rather
than just client-consumers. There is, with dynamic DNS update no reason why
they should not permit people with always-on IPs to
