Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - RMX -- After reading the archive

From: david nicol <[email-masked]>
Date: 03 Nov 2003 01:21:06 -0600

Well that was a fun thing to scan.

I was not able to find my "pet issues" addressed within the
subjects of the nearly 250 archived e-mails, nor any reference
made to the I-D-formatted document I posted links to in early october.

Here's what I have to say:

1: No new DNS records!  Proposals should restrict themselves
   to A records, MX records, PTR records, and (optionally, only!)
   TXT records.  Otherwise, no matter how beautiful they look on
   paper, they won't happen.

2: Recognize that all proposals have in common that they list
   a set of network addresses under a name of some kind, under
   a domain name that can be used as an administrative border.

3: Separate (1) the mechanics of listing from (2) the semantics of what
   is listed and (3) when the list is to be consulted.  These three
   are separate issues.  The first is entirely separable from the
   second two, the second two are intertwined, the third being the
   intention of the second.

I offered a declaration of a best practice for implementing a
list of machines, and got little criticism of it.  I also got no
response from the RFC editor, presumably since the space the
proposal is in is well within DeKok's group, which I was not
invited to participate in.

On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 13:05, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As mentioned before, various RMX-type proposals are being reconciled in 
> a closed subgroup under the direction of Alan Dekok. This subgroup 
> operates its own mailing list, and its mailing list archive is now 
> coming online. It is available at:
> 
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg.rmx

-- 
david nicol / A thousand towers rise before me and I cannot climb them all.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:44:17 -0500

> made to the I-D-formatted document I posted links to in early october.

  My wife spent a most of week in the hospital in early October, and
I'm just catching up with work.  I have your draft in my inbox, and
will respond privately.

>    paper, they won't happen.

  That's pretty much the consensus of the group.

>    a domain name that can be used as an administrative border.

  That's also pretty much the consensus of the group.

>    second two, the second two are intertwined, the third being the

  I'm not sure what you mean by that, or what changes you would
suggest making to the documents.

> list of machines, and got little criticism of it.

  Please understand this: No one is required to read or comment on
anything in ASRG.  It's strictly volunteer.

>  I also got no response from the RFC editor, presumably since the
> space the proposal is in is well within DeKok's group, which I was
> not invited to participate in.

  The RFC editor does not respond to individual proposals.

  It's not "DeKok's" group, it's "ASRG-RMX".  Please use the correct
name, to keep the discussion professional.

  You were not invited to participate because almost no one was
invited to participate.  The requirements for participation were made
clear in the original post announcing the creation of the sub-group.

  Alan DeKok.