Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00.txt

[David Conrad <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 12, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> RFC 2050 is outdated and historic and its status should be made to
>> reflect that truth.
> made your bed, sleep in it.  

Mea culpa, but it's time to get out of bed.

> maybe learn not to do it again?  nope.  

To be clear, I think RFC 2050 was helpful when it was published, however as I said, the Internet has moved on and I believe there are better venues in which operational policies for addresses can be developed. I figure it's called "best _current_ practice" for a reason.

> we need bookkeepers.  we get wannabe regulators.  

+1

> now we have wannabe

> regulators who want to write the regulations completely outside of
> coordination with the rest of the community.  oh goodie.


I don't believe moving RFC 2050 to historic implies the operational community efforts to develop policy is "completely outside coordination with the rest of the community". I would, in fact, be quite supportive of (and would even contribute to (if it would be helpful)) IETF input to ICANN/IANA on a replacement for RFC 2050. 

Regards,
-drc