Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00.txt

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

< more vituperation >

>> we need bookkeepers.  we get wannabe regulators.  
> +1

and, as a friend pointed out, in sidr, we are arming them.  i try hard
to ameliorate this.  but that's another subject.

> I don't believe moving RFC 2050 to historic implies the operational
> community efforts to develop policy is "completely outside
> coordination with the rest of the community".

fwiw, i do not consider the irs to represent the operational community,
though they claim very loudly to do so.  they have coopted the space,
but, imiho, represent the interests of self-perpetuating organizational
fiefdoms far more than operators.  itu-t wannabes.

> I would, in fact, be quite supportive of (and would even contribute to
> (if it would be helpful)) IETF input to ICANN/IANA on a replacement
> for RFC 2050.

at russ's request (i did warn him of the poolpah), i tried to start a
2870 (dns root ops) bis with only one sentence added.

   2.7  Root servers SHOULD fully support queries and make corresponding
        responses with either IPv4 or IPv6.

the root ops private fiefdom rose up in objetion and non-cooperation
which has become their hallmark.

fighting fiefdoms is a waste of time.  the answer is to shut them the
hell down.

randy