--On 28. mars 2004 05:03 +0000 Paul Vixie <vixie(_at_)vix(_dot_)com> wrote:
and at least some opinion that publishing it was better for the Internet
than not publishing it - certainly, for every standards-track RFC, there
was at one time a majority view in the IESG that such was the case.
well, no. the iesg at the time of 2065 was clearly out smoking pot on the
back deck, there is no possible way that it could have been seen as "good
for the internet" or even "good, at all." exhaustion, dayjobs, and
I remember 2065 well, because that was the first time this freshly-minted
AD ever cast a "DISCUSS" position in the IESG - pointing out one obvious
error, and saying that "I don't understand the wildcard
Once one was fixed, and the other revised, I was told by the responsible AD
at the time that securing the DNS was of primary importance (which I
continue to believe is true) and that the WG understood the specification
(which I now doubt) and its operational implications (about which history
has produced the consensus - it wasn't so. But we needed to try it before
we learned that lesson properly).
So I let it pass.... in retrospect, I don't think that kicking it back to
the WG once more would have been better for the Internet. Shutting down the
WG without a result and doing something different might have been better.
But we didn't think so at the time.
One point to learn is probably that specifications need to make it out of
the WG before the WG is exhausted. And that it's really, really hard to do
disaster recovery when that doesn't happen.