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

[Einar Stefferud <Stef=[e-mail]>]

I agree with all the points made by John Curran, John Klensin, Steve
Goldstein, Wolfgang Henke, and much of what Randy says, though it is
really hard to read Randy's attacks and separate his rage from reason.
And, Bill's vociferous responses are of very little help.

At this point I think the main issue is whether the IETF is going to
endorse Bill's RFC.  I am clearly against such publication with IETF
endorsement.


From your message Sun, 5 May 1996 12:21:39 -0400:
}
[snip,snip]
}
}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
}


Whether Bill Manning should be allowed to publish it without IETF
endorsement is a yet series of RFCs called "OPINION Papers" such as
Bill's proposed RFC.  This is not just "information"...  It contains
directives and restrictions on behavior, and as noted could easily be
used by various parties to block many many efforts to get connected.

I have personally witnessed such obstructive efforts in a certain
developing country, and I have no desire to add any fuel to such
obstructive efforts, even with an Informational RFC published without
IETF endorsement.  I would like it to be clearly labeled "OPINION".

And, at the end of these thoughts, I find myself asking how all these
directives and restrictions will improve the greater Internet's
performance?

One of the neat things about the Internet is that if some edge site
does not get its DNS working right, it is effectively parked in a
black hole, and the rest of the Internet looks like a black hole to
its users.

Does it really effect the rest of the net in any significant way, such
that preventing it will make a noticeable different to the rest of the
net?  I think we have seen from the comments here that this RFC will
not help anyone who is just getting started.

Would it not be more useful to require that any DNS node must arrange
for some other properly stable site to serve as an authoritative site
if the owner-site is not properly stabile.  Actually, I always thought
that this was a requirement, to assure DNS stability for every site.

I certainly understood this when I set up my DNS domain, and I had
little or no trouble finding more than one stabile site to host my
records.

Seems to me like a much simpler way to address the stability issue.

Cheers...\Stef