Subject: RE: lastVerified: optional vs. extension

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:04:22 -0500

> 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.

Yes, thanks to you I have an understanding of what .de is doing and how it
works.  You're quite incorrect, though, to claim that I or anyone else
ignored the .de model or your points.  I (and several others) _disagreed_
with your points.  That doesn't mean your position was ignored, and it's an
assault on reality to claim otherwise.

Don't forget that my last proposal for addressing out-of-zone hosts (which
tilted towards the .de model, by the way) has also not been incorporated
into the documents.  That example, and the reality of how your comments were
addressed, is a measure of how the consensus process works.  I'm not about
to suggest that my inputs on the issue were ignored just because the WG
didn't go along with them, though.

-Scott-

---

From: Klaus Malorny <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 22:31:30 +0100

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
Hi Scott,

> assault on reality to claim otherwise.

No, no. I have don't have any problems if there are multiple positions 
regarding a topic with good arguments for each one and not mine is taken 
at the end.
But regarding the discussion I'm referring to, it was like convincing 
the pope that the earth is a sphere and not the center of the universe. 
You insisted on your position without taking my arguments into account. 
At least this appeared that way to me.

> didn't go along with them, though.

Well, at the moment I don't know which proposal you are referring to, 
but let me say that external hosts were never a problem to me. The 
problem I had and still have are the in-zone hosts - who is allowed to 
create them and under which conditions they are used for the creation of 
glue records. I explained more than once to you that your model does not 
have the high level of security/reliability you claim. I got the 
impression that it wasn't a communication problem that you did not 
understand me, but that you just *didn't want* to understand me. I have 
to admit that this really hurt me somewhere.

> -Scott-

regards,

Klaus

___________________________________________________________________________
      |       |
      | knipp |                   Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
       -------                           Technologiepark
                                         Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
      Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny           44227 Dortmund
      [email-masked]             Tel. +49 231 9703 0

---

From: Klaus Malorny <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 23:08:57 +0100

Hi Scott,

I hereby officially beg pardon. On the search in my archive I discovered 
that I mostly discussed this topic with other participants and not with 
you, so my memory deceived me. Therefore I deeply regret that I made the 
charge to you personally.

regards,

Klaus