Well that was a fun thing to scan.
I was not able to find my "pet issues" addressed within the
subjects of the nearly 250 archived e-mails, nor any reference
made to the I-D-formatted document I posted links to in early october.
Here's what I have to say:
1: No new DNS records! Proposals should restrict themselves
to A records, MX records, PTR records, and (optionally, only!)
TXT records. Otherwise, no matter how beautiful they look on
paper, they won't happen.
2: Recognize that all proposals have in common that they list
a set of network addresses under a name of some kind, under
a domain name that can be used as an administrative border.
3: Separate (1) the mechanics of listing from (2) the semantics of what
is listed and (3) when the list is to be consulted. These three
are separate issues. The first is entirely separable from the
second two, the second two are intertwined, the third being the
intention of the second.
I offered a declaration of a best practice for implementing a
list of machines, and got little criticism of it. I also got no
response from the RFC editor, presumably since the space the
proposal is in is well within DeKok's group, which I was not
invited to participate in.
On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 13:05, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
Hi,
As mentioned before, various RMX-type proposals are being reconciled in
a closed subgroup under the direction of Alan Dekok. This subgroup
operates its own mailing list, and its mailing list archive is now
coming online. It is available at:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg.rmx
--
david nicol / A thousand towers rise before me and I cannot climb them all.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg