To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
cc:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:12:58 -0400
Content-ID:
<41021.1034885578.1@nic-naa.net>
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:51:01 EDT." <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD603370077@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: FW: IESG Review Comments -- item 7
Scott,
The choice of labelN.labelN-1..label1.label0, for values of N < big, seems
to be entirely editorial in nature. Second, while Donald may have had the
best of intentions in bagging some SLDs (example.{com,net,org}, the strings
MUST, MANDITORY, MUSTY and MANDIBLE occure nowhere in 2606, therefore to
conclude that some labelN.labelN-1..label1.label0 sequence is "wrong" seems
without foundation.
Personally I don't care what you do, and I do wish IESG review would focus
on the protocol, not the namespace ephemera. If someone from .be could get
"cenestpasunepipe.be" (The Treachery of Images) that would be splendid, and
get the ICANN marketing cruft out of the way.
utterly-bogus.nld and pseudo-random.nld work for me.
The point is a clear spec, nothing else.
Eric