On Jan 12, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Randy Bush <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:
RFC 2050 is outdated and historic and its status should be made to
reflect that truth.
made your bed, sleep in it.
Mea culpa, but it's time to get out of bed.
maybe learn not to do it again? nope.
To be clear, I think RFC 2050 was helpful when it was published, however as I
said, the Internet has moved on and I believe there are better venues in which
operational policies for addresses can be developed. I figure it's called "best
_current_ practice" for a reason.
we need bookkeepers. we get wannabe regulators.
+1
now we have wannabe
regulators who want to write the regulations completely outside of
coordination with the rest of the community. oh goodie.
I don't believe moving RFC 2050 to historic implies the operational community
efforts to develop policy is "completely outside coordination with the rest of
the community". I would, in fact, be quite supportive of (and would even
contribute to (if it would be helpful)) IETF input to ICANN/IANA on a
replacement for RFC 2050.
Regards,
-drc