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

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

At 2:54 PM 5/4/96, Randy Bush wrote:
>Please excuse the level of outrage and sarcasm.  But a little birdie told me
>that this was going to iRFC and I don't have the time to polish this into my
>normal good manners <grin>.

Good morning, Randy...

>I can not support the publication of draft-manning-dnssvr-criteria-01.txt as
>either a BCP or as an informational RFC.  

I believe this has been submitted as an Informational RFC.   

>In a nutshell, it would impose
>strange and unnecessary constraints on those running TLDs, especially those
>in startup networks in developing countries, precisely the kind of folk we
>want to get online and up in a reasonable fashion.

Informational RFC's do not "impose" constraints on anyone.   They do tend 
to cause the emergance of countervailing RFC's, but that's the point of a 
"Request For Comments" document, no?   There is nothing lost by publishing
a draft as an RFC, as long as everyone remembers that we've created some
documents series (STD/FYI/BCP) for those looking for "official" statements.

Six months from now, I'd rather see two RFC's on this topic (i.e. the current
draft and the one that you'll soon be writing with the opposing viewpoint  ;-),
than no documents at all.    Hence, I'd really like to see this draft published.

/John