Subject: Undeliverable Message

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 98 22:12:11 CST

To:            smtp[<[email-masked]>]
Cc:            
Subject:       Re: New TLD BOF @ LA IETF '98

Message not delivered to recipients below.  Press F1 for help with VNM
error codes.               

	VNM3036:  James [email-masked]@TXIRV

VNM3036 -- RETRY PERIOD EXPIRED

   If a user sends a message with an undeliverable
   address, Mail keeps trying to deliver the 
   message for a time period specified by the message
   expiration time.  If the message cannot be 
   delivered within that period, the sender receives
   a notice of undeliverable mail with this error code.

   Check the address on the message, and make any
   necessary corrections.  If the address appears to
   be correct, verify that the connections to the 
   recipient's mail service are working properly and 
   that the recipient's group still exists.

----------------------  Original Message Follows  ----------------------

I concur with John Curran's assessment of the DNS situation.

I do not see any significant technical problems to be resolved, and
the IETF is not widely known for its usefulness in solving political
problems.  

What we need is an open political forum and the collective will to
cooperate there-in.  I recommend that it also have set rules for civil
discourse and monitors to guard against abuse of civility.

Civility has been one of the greatest lacks in the entire DNS
imbrogio.

I see no reason to wait until April to start;-)...\Cheers...\Stef

[No comments inerted below this line.]

>From John Curran's message Sun, 01 Feb 1998 02:14:31 -0500:
}
}At 12:36 AM 2/1/98 -0500, Bob Allisat wrote:
}>
}> Respectfully I will repeat my
}> call for a BOF at the upcoming
}> IETF Meeting in Los Angeles in
}> March. 
}
}Bob,
} 
}You're seeking a BOF for discussion of three basic issues:
} 
}    1.  Requirements for Root Name servers
}    2.  Requirements for Domain Name Registries
}    3.  Total TLD capacity of the DNS system
}
}Given the existing workload on IETF participants, I'd
}rather not see a BOF unless there's clearly technical
}work that needs to be done and we have a good chance 
}of successful output.  I can't speak for the other IESG
}folks but it's probably safe to assume that we're all
}operating under similar goals for IETF productivity.
}
}Looking at your principal goals for the BOF, there 
}doesn't seem to be any protocol or standards work 
}that would result (or, at least, not obvious to me.)
}
}With respect to #1 (Root Server Requirements), RFC2010 
}seems relevant.  If you have suggestions for edits, I 
}would send them to the authors or submit a draft with 
}an alternative view. There's no need for a WG in either 
}case and we're dealing with "Informational" RFC status.
}
}With respect to #2 (Registry/Registrar Requirements), it 
}appears that the most useful forum is now provided by the
}recent Green Paper release.  Appendix 1 of that document
}provides an interesting initial starting point, and there 
}is an explicit request for feedback if you have strong 
}views on this issue.
} 
}With respect to the final point (TLD capacity of the DNS),
}I've enjoyed several months of discussion on this topic and
}hence am somewhat skeptical that rough consensus is readily
}achievable by convening a BOF.  Again, if you have a certain
}viewpoint regarding the DNS system's total TLD capacity, you
}can gain immediate visibility by submitting your analysis as 
}an informational RFC.   No WG is necessary for this purpose.
}
}When there is standards work to be done, we can launch WG's
}fairly quickly (some folks believe we do it far too quickly 
}at times :-)   In this case, there isn't any substance to 
}warrant a working group and hence the lukewarm response to 
}the offer.
}
}/John
}