Re: "ok" status on domains (and other objects)

[Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>]

At 18:25 +0000 12/2/02, Michael Graff wrote:
>Once it gains RFC level, regardless of how firm the mud is, people tend to
>point at it and say "but the RFC says..." and worse, "but the implementations
>all do..."  The latter isn't bad, for "it's as good, but different" but is
>IMHO a serious mistake to have for things that can be added later, once
>they are more thought out.

The problem is that the IETF has traditionally done a poor job of 
setting expectations.  Perhaps provreg should take it upon ourselves 
to add a note to the introduction to our documents to reinforce what 
is said in 2026.  I don't know, I'm just saying.  The reason I think 
that this may be applicable here is that a lot of the folks reading 
and implementing to the documents haven't been properly warned of the 
limitations of what an RFC is and what the standards level mean.

>Needless to say, most of the above is directed at the ROID stuff.

I ain't saying you are wrong.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer