Re: I-D ACTION:draft-sanz-rfc1032-historic-00.txt

SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 29 August 2005 18:40 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E9oYC-0005m4-HC; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:40:08 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E9oYA-0005lk-8m for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:40:06 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26896 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:40:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from www.wheatonconsulting.com ([208.185.248.152]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E9oZX-0000nE-5w for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:41:32 -0400
Received: from subman.resistor.net (ADSL-TPLUS-102-59.telecomplus.net [196.192.102.59]) by www.wheatonconsulting.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7TIdcwY002285 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:39:48 -0700
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1125340790; h=Message-Id: X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version: Content-Type; b=p90OpvjXg4LpkYanZ3LEuGRp5lhm/DoUhnoSLNweedta77WVU/X 5z/PEYPcJTiqG
Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050829093843.03001a98@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:46:03 -0700
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, ietf@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <FB1385E71CFF4953FA521E29@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
References: <E1E7IIz-0000up-NV@newodin.ietf.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050828000713.02f3efb8@resistor.net> <FB1385E71CFF4953FA521E29@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Cc:
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-sanz-rfc1032-historic-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At 19:31 28-08-2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>The IETF *is not in the business of* "document the contact point for 
>problems concerning a domain". That duty is left to registry 
>operators, who have a whole apparatus (ICANN) for making it possible 
>to figure out how to do that. And they can ask to have such specs 
>published as RFCs if they want to - it's been done before; examples 
>include RFC 1875 ("UNINETT PCA Policy Statements"). But ICANN hasn't 
>done that, so no policy related to any *current* domain 
>administrator is on the record.

Thank you for the clarification.  It is more informative than what is 
written in the draft.

>Status UNKNOWN seems like a fine status to keep, in my opinion. 
>Status INFORMATIONAL

That's my opinion too.

Regards,
-sm 


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf