IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-manning-dnssvr-criteria-01.txt

John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net> Sun, 05 May 1996 17:36 UTC

Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14733; 5 May 96 13:36 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14724; 5 May 96 13:36 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09992; 5 May 96 13:36 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14710; 5 May 96 13:36 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14654; 5 May 96 13:34 EDT
Received: from ns.jck.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09972; 5 May 96 13:34 EDT
Received: from white-box.jck.com ("port 2025"@white-box.jck.com) by a4.jck.com (PMDF V5.0-5 #16053) id <0DQY0U995006YD@a4.jck.com>; Sun, 05 May 1996 13:34 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 13:34:54 -0400
X-Orig-Sender: ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
Subject: Re: draft-manning-dnssvr-criteria-01.txt
X-Orig-Sender: john@mail1.reston.mci.net
To: John Curran <jcurran@bbnplanet.com>
Cc: ietf@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Message-id: <SIMEON.9605051354.C@white-box.mail1.reston.mci.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.0.6
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Priority: NORMAL
X-Authentication: none
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

On Sun, 05 May 1996 12:21:39 -0400  John Curran 
<jcurran@bbnplanet.com> wrote:

> The addition of some context for 
its recommendations might be 
> a useful addition.   However, prevent publication as an informational
> RFC because some random soul might misconstrue the categorizing
> is unreasonable.    Unless the IETF has a working group underway 
> working on the same topic, I'd advise against ad-hoc censorship of
> new informational RFCs.

John,

I don't think there is anything in my note that suggests 
"prevent" or "censor" -- certainly neither was intended.  We 
post these documents as I-Ds so that the community can comment, 
and the community is commenting.   And we do have some 
procedures for publishing things with stronger-than-usual 
disclaimers when that seems to be justified and, unless the 
document is modified by its author, I would suggest that such 
disclaimer language might be appropriate.  

That is really all.
   john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email