To:
"Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@REACTO.com>
Cc:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Date:
Tue, 02 Jan 2001 08:24:12 -0800
In-Reply-To:
<3A5095E2.EFF72FED@REACTO.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Draft provreg charter
At 02:36 PM 1/1/01 +0000, Paul M. Kane wrote: >As with much in this world ...technology is not the main issue but the >political >environment in which technology may be employed.... For IETF work, that statement is not correct. The IETF seeks very diligently to focus on technical issues, to the exclusion of political ones. To date it has succeeded in that focus quite well. >So may I suggest inorder to progress the RRP >protocol, the obligation for Registrars/Registries to adopt the "standard" RRP >(resulting from this process) is not to the exclusion of other "less >regulated" >technologies/requirements. The IETF has dealt with the problem of national variations before, not surprisingly also in the realm of security/privacy. As noted above, the issue was resolved by focusing on technical issues rather than political. Countries are free to adopt technically inferior solutions. The IETF is not. That said, it is usually true that IETF work provides layered solutions, such having security and functional mechanisms that work independently. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Brandenburg Consulting <www.brandenburg.com> Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464