[dns-wg] Followup to IANA TLD delegation problem
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Followup to IANA TLD delegation problem
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Followup to IANA TLD delegation problem
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Jun 23 01:47:42 CEST 2005
At 02:38 22/06/2005, Jim Reid wrote: >On Jun 22, 2005, at 00:01, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: >>- what was the unexpected result? >>- what did cause it? >>- what did permit to decide it could be addressed in small committee? >>- what did permit to immediately understand the problem was temporary? >>- how was it fixed? >>- how to be sure it will not repeat? >>- why was the mail received by AFNIC phrased that way? >>- I have some concerns learning that Verisign has the capacity to enter >>manually in the root? Why was the problem corrected in changing the root >>file and not the entry in the IANA file? > >Jefsey, these questions have already been adequately answered in the >responses from Doug Barton on June 11th and 13th. Matt Larson's >clarification on the 15th was also helpful. If those replies were not >clear enough for you, please take it up directly with the authors of those >messages. Dear Jim, I do not think they answer the concerns I have. >I'd appreciate it if you did not carry out that dialogue on the DNS WG >list. I see no need to continue this discussion any further in this >mailing list. Alexander Gall made some comments on the processes >surrounding the to-be-replaced template. Aside from his observations, the >list has been silent. So the WG should now consider this discussion closed. It is not silent since I rose these points. Political decisions may result from this, this is why I would have prefered to be exhaustive and fair. But I do not understand your political layer: now we discuss source code and operational procedures. >[Authors of drafts will typically circulate them to colleagues for >feedback before they get published.] This is a BCP based upon three years of work and test by an independent organisation (IETF was not interested). What is reported here is more experimental than operational. Hence my interest. >Feel free to complete your draft and submit it to the IETF in the usual >manner. Or if you'd prefer to have the DNS WG discuss your draft, post it >to the list where I'm sure it will get the attention it deserves. Certainly. >BTW Jefsey, please fix your mail client or at least trim your postings. >There's no need for everyone to see everything that's been posted on this >thread over and over again by appending the whole of the message you're >replying to. Apologies. jfc
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Followup to IANA TLD delegation problem
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Followup to IANA TLD delegation problem
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]