[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From: Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:39:56 -0500
In-Reply-To: <200303031547.h23FlqtY079531@nic-naa.net>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] FYI: EPP implementation by the Polish registry

At 10:47 -0500 3/3/03, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
>Note Bene Chair:
>	1. IESG (Randy or Allison) asked and answered
>	2. IESG (Patrick) asked and answered
>	3. .NL asked and not responsive
>	4. .PL asked and not responsive
>	5. Newbie noises

I should respond to earlier parts of the mail, but I'll pick on this first.

As far as 1 & 2, the IESG has taken the first step the responsible 
guardian.  I have to admit, however, that the detail I have obtained 
from them has been insufficient to evaluate any proposed solution as 
being "the right one."  I do not dispute the spirit of the IESG 
comments, I just wish that the comments were supported by more 
substance, as could be provided by 3 & 4.

I cannot speak as to why 3 & 4 were not responsive.  But these 
categories represent an important voice that I think needs to be 
heard.  I was looking to such a constituency to give more information 
on what the IESG is hinting we need, but I haven't been able to 
introduce any discussion in this way.

(I should add that I am not so disappointed that 3 and 4 haven't 
responded, I am more disappointed that there haven't been other 
organizations of similar ilk saying anything at all.  Yes, that's a 
generalization - and the IETF is supposed to be individual 
participation, but the list needs to hear folks with knowledge of 
other environments to help pound out a solution to this issue.)

The latter case - "newbie" is rather derogatory term.  Whether or not 
any one person agrees/disagrees with the words uttered, comments of 
this ilk (when on topic) are good to hear.  The IETF isn't about 
making protocols that implementors agree to - it's about making 
interoperable useful protocols.

>Does ((dnp==1 at .nl) == (dnp==1 at .com)) semantically evaluate to 1, or 0?

The answer to this is a determining factor (to me at least) of 
whether $dnp is in the base specification or in an extension.

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


Home | Date list | Subject list