At 01:17 20/10/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
1591 norms and definitions, and a large fraction of top-level
domains and others have declined to accept the ICANN version,
1591 probably still does represent a best practice consensus in
most respects.
The ccTLD community has a BCP under "preparation" for a while and
globally abides by the version we completed in Dec. 2000. It is
mainly based on RFC 1591.
There is certainly a need for a liaison between the IETF and the
ccTLD. However the response of Brian to my proposition to introduce
the hows at the Luxembourg meeting, shown a confusion between
Registry Manager's role and community trustee. This is the same
confusion which mares the relations with ICANN. The comming Tunis
resolution may help solving this situation. This is why most of the
proposed additions to RFC 2606bis seem an unwelcome and inappropriate
debate right now (unless IETF wants to get involved in the
international network operations).
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf