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

[Steve Goldstein <[e-mail]>]

At 11:24 AM 5/5/96, John C Klensin wrote:

>... Now the question is: does she try
>to run TCP/IP or does she fall back on UUCP and/or Fidonet.  I
>think we can all agree that we'd prefer that TCP/IP be her
>choice.  At least I hope we can.

John isn't just beating his chops here: this is REAL.  Lots of places are
just emerging from Fido/UUCP limitations, and others want to.  We ought not
raise the bar too much, lest we exclude them from participating.
>
>Now IETF ... comes along and says "it really isn't
>acceptable to run a TLD without at least two or three high
>performance workstations, NTP synchronization, and a 7x24
>operations staff with backup for all positions in the event of
>sickness or vacations".   That message translates rather exactly
>and immediately into "don't bother running TCP/IP,... Run
>something where people won't be trying to make these sorts of
>rules and where they are used to semi-attended machines and
>operations".
>
>I don't like that answer very much.  Do you?

I surely don't like it, either.  John, you are "bang-on!"
>
>...There are
>institutions in many of these countries who believe that small,
>independent, Internet operations are a threat to their present
>or future plans and would love to have an "IETF RFC" in their
>hands to buttress their case that no one should be permitted to
>put an Internet network in until the Ministry of Grasping and
>Control (or its privatized equivalent) gets around to doing so
>(on its terms, of course).
>
>That, IMO, is another not-very-good outcome.

Again, John, you are right on-target.


To all this, I would add a slight re-phrasing of the Internet maxim:

 "Be generous in what you accept, and understanding in what you send."

--Steve G.

____________________________________________
Steve Goldstein, National Science Foundation
         [phone]  Ext. 1119
 "Let's not procrastinate until next week!"