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

[Brett Watson <[e-mail]>]

  i like what bill has written so far, and i agree with the comments
kre makes below to clarify some points but i think the *real* problem
with this draft is the *tone* of the message.  there are too many
words like 'must', 'will', and other 'demanding' type words.  kre
mentions several title changes but i think if the overall tone of the
draft changed to 'this is what we would like to see' it would be more
palatable to everyone.

  if i were to read this as a startup isp (or other company), and i
was new to reading rfc's and i-d's, i would feel like i were breaking
a law if i didn't follow it to the letter.  again, i like the
*content* but the tone seems pretty demanding.  maybe it's just me.

-brett

> From:    Robert Elz <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: draft-manning-dnssvr-criteria-01.txt 
> 
> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 May 1996 14:53:57 MST."
> 	 <[e-mail]> 
> Sender:  [e-mail]
> Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
> 
>     Date:        Mon, 6 May 1996 14:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
>     From:        [e-mail]
>     Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>
> 
>     -02 was some editorial changes that Paul had asked for
>     and Brians excise of the draft nature of the docuement.
> 
> Did it ever appear in the I-D directories?  I don't see it.
> 
> 
>     Abstract
>     
>     This draft proposes criteria for name servers and their environments that 
>     will support zones for root domains. It is expected that the machines 
>     running root name service will be different than the machines 
>     running TLD name service. Although there are differences, the same basic
>     criteria may hold. For example, it is expected that TLD servers may 
>     field more queries and the root servers may be more concerned with cache 
>     pollution. There are some feelings that if you want to (and have the
>     resources to) run a high quality nameserver anywhere in the DNS hierarchy, 
>     these criteria may be considered.
> 
> I kind of understand why, but this has gotten a bit wishy washy...

[... deleted ...]