[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TINW was RFC2821b is-01 Issue 1: trailing dot in Domain

2007-03-26 21:40:36

Thank you everyone for not breaking this moratorium.

Please constrain your suggestions to ones that do *not* change the
protocol in fundamental ways. As long as you follow this one rule and
the discussion appears to be leading to a solution, we're okay.

Please, if anyone feels that we're straying out of scope, send *me* a
note rather than complaining on the list. I may not have seen the
potentially offending message yet, or may not have read it in the same
fashion as you, or may not have decided to act on it yet. Often, just
ignoring the transgression is simpler than making an issue out of it. As
long as people don't react to a troll, it won't create a distraction
from the more serious discussions.

An example of a fundamental change that should not be discussed would be
adding a new protocol verb or adding a new parameter to an existing
protocol verb. While such suggestions might provide a solution that is
indeed more elegant, they are *out of scope* for our purposes here. If
you have a neat suggestion like that, *please* write it up in a internet
draft and we can discuss it separately. (If you've never done it, I'll
even offer my help you create the internet draft.) But please do not
suggest such changes to 2821bis.

Thank you for your patience in this matter. Here's to a better protocol
in the end.

Now, let's continue working toward a better understanding of dot-less
domain names.

Your pseudo-chair in this effort,

        Tony Hansen

Tony Hansen wrote:
Frank Ellermann wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:

OK folks. It's time for me to step in.

I'm declaring a moratorium on this topic until Tuesday. Please do not
post anything further on this topic until then. After the moratorium is
over on Tuesday, please see my suggestions below.

It's time to refocus and get back to technical issues.

Up until the last couple of messages, I didn't see the discussions on
Issue 1 (trailing dot in Domain) as wandering very far out of scope. So
far, it seemed (to me) to be trying to come to a common understanding of
how 821 and 2821 differed and clearing up misunderstandings on some of
the history of the changes that occurred between those two documents.

In the 19 years between 821 and 2821, there was much debate about what
was right and what was not. Some things in 821 were clarified and/or
fixed by 1123, and further clarified and/or fixed in 2821.

Some of those fixes deliberately added some restrictions to what was in
821. None of such fixes were done lightly, but only occurred after much
debate before and during Drums. They took into consideration a number of
side issues that have not come up in this latest go-around, and we
shouldn't need to do so again.

The problem I see occurring right now is that some people are not aware
of all that history, nor are they aware of why *this particular* change
occurred going from 821 to 1123 to 2821. And I can see how people can
feel frustration over this.

Folks, lets take a breather for a few days on this issue before any
further posts are done on it. I don't want it blowing up any further
than it already has.

When Tuesday comes (any time zone), let's start by working toward a
better understanding of how and why the change occurred. It may be that
it was an accident that truly does need to be changed, or it may be that
it was a deliberate change that was done for many reasons and should not
be unchanged. And *THEN* let's figure out the best way forward.