RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt

["Ray Plzak" <plzak@arin.net>]

If the purpose of this draft is to propose policy, then it should not be
an item for the WG, but should be put into the RIR policy process.  If
the purpose of the draft is to define real technical reasons why in-addr
are required then the work should proceed and be judged on that merit.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dnsop@cafax.se [mailto:owner-dnsop@cafax.se] On 
> Behalf Of Rob Austein
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:32 PM
> To: dnsop@cafax.se
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt
> 
> 
> So far we've heard from:
> 
> - Ray, who pointed out some RIR-related (specifically, ARIN-related)
>   text that needs some work;
> 
> - Måns, who liked the draft and suggested adding text discussing IPv6;
> 
> - Dean, who says that we should not be working on this draft.
> 
> Does anybody -else- have comments on this draft?  In particular: does
> anybody who has not yet spoken on this have an opinion on whether the
> WG should be working on this?
> 
> Note to anyone who has not figured this out yet: the title of the
> draft is old, does not match the content of the draft as it evolved,
> and most likely would be changed before publication to match the
> current content of the draft.  Please READ THE DRAFT rather than
> jumping to conclusions about what it says based on the title.
> 
> #-------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.
> 


#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.