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

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

At 11:24 AM 5/5/96, John C Klensin wrote:
>...
>Now we run into the obvious defense: "this is just an 
>information RFC, if it doesn't apply, don't pay any attention to 
>it".  But we all know from experience that those labels and 
>distinctions don't help much when someone is a little confused 
>about the message and help even less when someone is trying to 
>deliberately mislead or distort.  
>...
>That, IMO, is another not-very-good outcome.

I agree 100%.   I will note that these same institutions often
have the ability to thwart (via politics and paperwork) such
grassroots initiatives, and we definitely do not want to add
a tool to the arsenal.     I'm just not all that certain that an
IETF informational RFC is all that potent, since anyone willing 
to deliberately mislead or distort to achieve their goals can 
often just as easily create a position paper and run it past their
nearest friendly approval body.

>Now, perhaps unlike Randy, I think your document contains mostly
>very good suggestions for a somewhat better world than that in 
>which we actually live.  If it had a rather carefully-developed 
>introduction that explained the circumstances under which it 
>really is and is not applicable and which discussed, in a 
>positive way, sensible lower-cost fallbacks from some of the 
>specific recommendations, my objections would disappear.  But, 
>as it stands, I've got some pretty strong concerns about its 
>being published.

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