To:
Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Simon Josefsson <simon+dnsop@josefsson.org>
Date:
Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:31:46 +0100
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.SOL.4.33.0202210933410.9569-100000@virgo.cus.cam.ac.uk> (PhilipHazel's message of "Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:40:22 +0000 (GMT)")
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.2.50(i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Subject:
Re: Minneapolis - agenda items please.
Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes: > I won't be in Minneapolis either, but I would like to progress the ID > that I'm editing: draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03.txt. There > has been very little comment on that draft. Just > > (a) One minor clarification rewording. > (b) A controversy over whether to include an explicit list of non-global > networks. Views for and against have been expressed. Currently > there is no list (I am on the anti side). > > Is it possible to move this ID into WG Last Call? I might have missed it, but does everyone agrees with this draft being a good thing? I still don't see how it can be enforced, and I don't see how it harms anyone else but the people that put incorrect information in their own DNS zones. Compare the current discussions in SAAG on publishing non-protocol recommendations as BCP that uses RFC 2119 keywords. Of course, the contents of the draft is good and everyone should understand and follow it, but doesn't everyone already? Is there any point in caring about the people that doesn't?