Re: Minneapolis - agenda items please.

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:32:21 -0800
    From:        Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
    Message-ID:  <E16gJAz-000G7v-00@rip.psg.com>

  | i see it as 'your' responsibility to live with the altered physics when
  | you, irregardless of transport, *leave* the internet by moving behind
  | a firm boundary.

There's a presumption in this that leaving the internet is a voluntary
choice, made by a party that is excluded.

If your ISP decides that they don't like your mail behaviour (perhaps
you say bad things about them in public...) and filters you - whose
responsibility is it to then "hide" the problem by rearranging MX records
so mail can get delivered without delaying other sites MTAs attempting to
connect to filtered addresses?

Of to be even more bizarre, if I decide to filter (the metaphoric) you,
so my MTA cannot reach your MX target, who should be dealing with that
as a problem?   You're the filtered one after all.

Filtering creates all kinds of issues, and simply deciding that someone
else should "fix" it seems to me to be outside reality.

kre

ps: is this discussion about the "don't publish unreachable" draft, or
about the "v4-v6 namespace fragmentation" draft?   I would have guessed the
former, but some of the comments make me believe that it might be about
the latter - it would be nice if the Subject header gave some clue...
I know that the meeting agenda item is v4-v6, but most of the discussion
seems to be about whether unreachable addresses should be published.
All very confusing...