Re: Multiple Namespaces Re: Split the IANA functions?

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 1/9/2014 11:40 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> The problem is that this issue keeps repeating, particularly in (shall we say) non-technical venues. In a private message I semi-seriously suggested someone should write an RFC that deprecates classes other than IN.  However, I'm beginning to think this might not be that bad of an idea -- at least there would be a document that the non-technical folks who keep raising the issue could be pointed at...


The premise to your line of thinking is that deprecating other classes 
will reduce these periodic demands for new name spaces.

One of the benefits of having had so many of these cycles of demands, 
over the last 15+ years, is that we can see that straightforward 
technical discussion and explanation does not dissuade the proponents. 
They want what they want and they reject information that counters what 
they want.

As I've become too fond of suggesting, the real requirement here is to 
move the work back onto those seeking the change.

      It is /their/ burden to do the work of proposing and specifying 
the change, in sufficient technical detail.

      It is /their/ burden to do the detail work of explaining how it 
can be viable.

      It is /their/ burden to recruit sufficient community support.

For the rest of us, the only burden is to put the burden back onto those 
folk.  Rather than saying "that won't work" and rather than trying to 
explain why it won't work, and rather than trying to narrow their 
opportunities for making criticisms, we merely need to recite some 
version of the above litany.

If they are so certain what they want is viable, they need to do the 
work of making it viable.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net