Dear Dave;
On Jun 17, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> I fully agree with Debbie here.
>> Human experience teaches us that examples will
>> be used, over time.
>
> Seems like 25+ years is a pretty solid sample size of experience, to
> test such a theory.*
>
Dear Colleagues,
I'm reading the proceedings of the IETF for the past few months. They
surprise me very much. I thought that the IETF was a serious
institution seriously publishing serious standards. I realized that
his organization is not made for that and I wonder how it can publish
something ser
John C Klensin wrote:
> hypothesize that, at some point, an RFC 2606bis might be created
> (and go through the consensus process to BCP) that offers special
> reserved names for newsgroups or mailing lists as well as domain
> names
JFTR, with respect to newsgroups that is already specified in
htt
Uh, Folks
DOMAIN NAMES cannot be reserved in that manner and this lawsuit from the US
District Court says so.
http://www.domainnamenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/express-media-express-corp-nd-ca.pdf
That's not going to fly. DOMAIN NAMES are IP and need to be registered as
TM's to protect th
Pete,
> I first want to re-iterate what Eric posted earlier: Please read the
> appeal. The *very minor* issue of the appeal is whether or not to use
> 2606 names. It is the use of the DISCUSS in this case that is at
> issue. That said:
>
I am uncomfortable ham-stringing the IESG (or having the
Dear Steve;
On Jun 17, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:44:33 -0400
> Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I fully agree with Debbie here.
>>
>> Human experience teaches us that examples will
>> be used, over time. Foo.com is a commercial site. If t
I first want to re-iterate what Eric posted earlier: Please read the
appeal. The *very minor* issue of the appeal is whether or not to use
2606 names. It is the use of the DISCUSS in this case that is at
issue. That said:
On 6/17/08 at 2:54 PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jun 2
--On Tuesday, 17 June, 2008 11:30 +0200 Simon Josefsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Here's my suggestion:
>>
>> List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the
>> examples used to indicate
>> that they are "grandfathered" non-2606 exam
if indeed RFC 2606 (a.k.a, BCP 32) said "all domain names in
RFCs MUST use one of the following bases" then a blocking DISCUSS
by an IESG member would be a reasonable thing. RFC 2606 does not
say that and, thus, a blocking DISCUSS is not reasonable
if the IESG had posted a set of rules that s
For what it's worth, I thought I remembered which document David was talking
about in his second case, and confirmed that it was
draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-09.txt.
There are narrative minutes from the telechat where David's DISCUSS position
was discussed, at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Narrati
The reason that RFC 2606 was made a BCP was that, at the time, it was
felt that a document with that level or approval was needed to reserve
domain names in the global Internet. Alternatively, it could have been
done with a standards track document, but that seemed inappropriate.
As has been state
Date:Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:50:02 +0100
From:"Debbie Garside" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I would also add that to go against an IETF BCP
Huh? The BCP in question says (in a bit more eloquent form)
"Here are some domain names that are reserv
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:44:33 -0400
Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fully agree with Debbie here.
>
> Human experience teaches us that examples will
> be used, over time. Foo.com is a commercial site. If the IETF uses
> foo.com in email examples,
> it is reasonable to assume that
I fully agree with Debbie here.
Human experience teaches us that examples will
be used, over time. Foo.com is a commercial site. If the IETF uses
foo.com in email examples,
it is reasonable to assume that foo.com will get unwanted traffic
because of that. I think that
the IETF should not put i
Not being a expert on this but having briefly read the documents in
question, I agree with Brian. This is not editorial. I would also add that
to go against an IETF BCP on the grounds of "well we have done so already
historically" does not make an argument for continuing to do so; errors
should be
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Docume
On 6/17/2008 9:45 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Thank you for sharing this information. Now that the community knows
>> this, perhaps this will be an option when there are snags in the
>> process in future.
>
>
> Folks keep missing the point:
On Jun 17, 2008, at 6:02 AM, David Kessens wrote:
> If my memory serves me correctly, we didn't have to do a formal
> override vote in both cases as the request of an override vote was
> enough to get the first case moving, while in the second case I
> decided that an informal strawpoll was
On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:36 PM, Brian Dickson wrote:
> List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the examples
> used to indicate that they are "grandfathered" non-2606 examples.
It seems that this gives 2606 more weight than it claims. What it
claims is, quoting its abstract:
Hi David,
Thank you for sharing this information. Now that the community knows
this, perhaps this will be an option when there are snags in the process
in future.
regards,
Lakshminath
On 6/17/2008 6:02 AM, David Kessens wrote:
> Lakshminath,
>
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:01:17PM -0700, Laks
Lakshminath,
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:01:17PM -0700, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>
> I have also been disappointed by the IESG not once invoking the override
> procedures even when a DISCUSS is clearly inappropriate.
For the record, during my time in the IESG, we have had at least two
cases w
Sounds like a lot of work to me. In the era of xml2rfc, that could be
error-prone as well. For the particular issue, having a notice in the
Conventions section might do (it may be there already...). However, it doesn't
address the fundamental issue raised by the appeal.
I don't think the IETF
Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's my suggestion:
>
> List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the examples used
> to indicate
> that they are "grandfathered" non-2606 examples.
>
> So, in text that previously read "not-example.com", it might read
> "not-example.com
23 matches
Mail list logo
