objections, was Re: lastVerified: optional vs. extension

[Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>]

At 16:25 +0100 12/6/02, Klaus Malorny wrote:

>you do know that the world's largest ccTLD (.de) has a different model
>currently and that it works fine. But you chose to ignore it. We had long
>discussions about the sense and nonsense of the association between name
>servers and the domains they belong to. But finally you chose to 
>ignore my >points completely. You designed it your way, with the 
>result that it is still
>being discussed heavily.

Can we get a summary of just what the problem is?  Pointers to the 
archives are sufficient, or perhaps more words to this.  Over time 
the way in which hosts (name servers) are associated with domains 
have changed.  There is still some talk about *external* hosts.  (You 
mention 'discussed heavily?'  In what venue?)

>Finally, I wouldn't interpret the silence of many list members as consent.
>People have different reasons to subscribe to this list and different reasons
>to participate actively or not.

I know of a couple of efforts that are on going 'under the covers.' 
This isn't beneficial to anyone as the WG can't react to comments not 
made.  In the IETF world, silence is consent because no one is ever 
required to voice an opinion.  Since we don't have voting, 
membership, etc., we have to rely on vocal participation.

I hope that no one feels that they are at the mercy of EPP.  I've 
been trying to get anyone with any reservations about EPP's 
definition to speak up.  I tried unsuccessfully to get ccTLDs to 
participate at the Atlanta meeting, to bring up unresolved issues. 
If anyone is afraid to speak against EPP because of its origin, speak 
directly to either of the co-chairs - Jaap and myself.  Neither of us 
is in any way attached to origins of the protocol.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer